Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of academic journals by preprint policy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A notice suggesting that some of the comments from this discussion may be implemented was placed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

List of academic journals by preprint policy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SHERPA/RoMEO already offers that. fgnievinski (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure how WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Academic journals are legitimate things to have articles about, and this is one reasonable way to classify them. (And for that matter, all information in Wikipedia is already offered somewhere else.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP There are reliable sources referring the information. XOR'easter already explained things quite well, neither of the reasons the nominator give are valid here.   D r e a m Focus  07:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * comment My sense is that this could be compacted a great deal even if kept, but it also seems to me that copying out the policy statement of every single journal is not really justifiable as fair use. Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete with tens of thousands of academic journals out there, this isn't viable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Too long is never a valid reason to delete something. I see a lot of entries at Category:Academic journals but its not tens of thousands.  Only those notable would be on the list of course.  And when list articles get too long they are broken into separate articles.   D r e a m Focus  22:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Tens of thousands of articles on journals already exist. Even if this was limited to a few thousands the argument would still apply. This is a list that is unmaintainable, and what their preprint policy is is not something that warrants a page on Wikipedia. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: we already keep plenty of lists of academic journals, this is a reasonable criterion by which to index them in my opinion--a3nm (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * delete unless substantially reduced in scope. as Headbomb says, this is potentially a list of every academic journal, ever. If a list of the exceptional case members were made, it would be manageable. But that wouldn't be this list. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Of course it is not exhaustive (nor should it be), but it fulfills a different role from databases aiming for completion (SHERPA/RoMEO, Transpose) in that it provides the reader with a useful snapshot of the range of journal policies on preprints. Jessica Polka (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: From my research into journals on issues related to retractions etc, I think it's extremely unlikely that tens of thousands of them will ever have a clear and findable policy on much of anything. And there are plenty of ways to make it more manageable. If it's not meant to be a comprehensive list, then I like the suggestion of it being for notable journals. An option in terms of both copyright and size would be to keep the information - especially that summarizing of them as compatible etc - and just linking to the specific reference instead of cutting and pasting the wording. It gets a fair number of pageviews, which strengthens the case for keeping it. (I've used it myself to save time when deciding on journals to submit manuscripts to.) I wouldn't make this decision based on whether a database currently exists: for most, we can never really be sure how long they will be around. Hildabast (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep but think about the purpose. It is much better to restrict to journals already having articles here. It is much better to extract from the policies ✅ and statements. An advantage of lists over categories is that such statements can be referenced. Wikidata is potentially a better place for the fine details, but isn't there yet in developing its data model. Such a list can be useful, for sure. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.