Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega journal


 * 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. Nomination wihdrawn, no other "delete" !votes. Randykitty (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Mega journal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable neologism, just meaning "big journal". Article is mostly OR and SYNTH. Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is indisputably demonstrated by three books discussing the term -- more than enough. Fgnievinski (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Originally the article was nominated for deletion on the grounds of original research or synthesis -- is there any remaining contention in that original regard? Fgnievinski (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources are mostly (although not all) blogs and such. At most, this should be a brief paragraph in the article on academic journals. --Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There's still plenty of books and journal article left if blogs are not considered. This stub page is expected to include discussions about its impact on academic publishing. This dispute is about mergism/separatism, not really deletion. And I still don't see how it could be original research or synthesis. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it's a notable topic. It's a commonly used term for a specific kind of journal, and it's a kind of journal that is growing in importance. I'll try and help improve the article when I have time. - Lawsonstu (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looking at the sources in GBooks and elsewhere, this does seem to satisfy GNG. I don't think it means "big journal". I think it means something like "PLOS ONE and any other journal that is run in the same sort of way". James500 (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, a mega-journal is a low-selectivity journal, not necessarily a large journal (consider, e.g., a failed mega journal). Fgnievinski (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article shows multiple references to chapters/articles in books, RS enough to satisfy notability requirements per WP:GNG. Beyond these, there are conference proceedings, eprints, and blogs, some by respected experts like Jeffrey Beall. IEEE Access happily declares itself a mega journal and a number of big science publishers have come out with their own mega journals. It seems that the academic publishing world has taken note of this phenomenon and this topic is likely to get more notable over time. The term has been used in the sources since at least 2011, so it doesn't fit the WP:NEO mold of an editor or minor player in the field trying to push a neologism. The article itself is carefully, nay defensively, cited. Except for one dubious sentence, I don't see the claimed synthesis or original research, just a summarization of sources. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn Based on the above comments (especially Mark viking) I withdraw the nom. There not being any "delete" !votes, I will close this as "keep". --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2014 (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.