Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resonance-Journal of Science Education


 * 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. and rename to Resonance (journal) Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Resonance-Journal of Science Education

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability; fails WP:NJOURNAL Iago Qnsi  (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge (or Redirect and let me merge after) Since it's published by Indian Academy of Sciences and that article needs content, I suggest merging there. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Indexed by Scopus, which is enough to meet WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per Mr. Magoo. Being indexed by Scopus, which this journal is, is not an automatic pass of WP:NJOURNALS. Considering that the metrics are rather poor (0.2 SNIP), and the absence of sources, I lean delete/merge. (Of course, searching for better sources is hard with such a title...) Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, NJournals lists indexing in Scopus explicitly as meeting criterion 1. --Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases in its field(s). Examples of such services are (...), and Scopus." I do not think this is the same as "being included in Scopus is always a pass". Compare with the wording of #2: "For the purpose of Criterion 1, having an impact factor (...) always qualifies under Criterion 1" (emphasis in the original).
 * Yes, the Scopus list is restrictive, so it does count. But it is not extremely restrictive either: they claim to reference more than 21k journal titles (almost 35k in the Excel file from their site, but some of those are marked as "inactive"). Do you really suggest all of them pass WP:JOURNALCRIT #1? That is not a rhetorical question, actually. And yes, I am aware that it does not mean they should all have an article. Tigraan Click here to contact me 07:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , I am actually sympathetic to your argument and have in the past proposed that we should not take listing in Scopus as sufficient, because it is the least selective of the databases that we call selective. My personal opinion is that our bar for inclusion of academic journals is too low. However, I'm clearly in the minority on this and the consensus at the Academic Journals WikiProject is that Scopus inclusion is enough, so I adhere to that consensus. (PS: please note that your link to Scopus only works if you are using an IP from an institution that subscribes to it :-) --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, even if I am a bit afraid that this is the kind of consensus that gets "written in stone" and resists possible changes in the situation (here, the strong tendency of Scopus to expand as customers ask for comprehensive coverage rather than strict selection). (Sorry for the paygated link.) Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * !Vote change: Rename Resonance (journal) as the official title (as indexed) is Resonance. (See above for the "indexed by Scopus" discussion) Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I already noted that, too, but didn't move the article yet because that tends to mess up the AfD links. --Randykitty (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename Apparently it passes WP:NJOURNAL because of the Scopus rule, so it's to be kept. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep perhaps as this seems convincing enough including what I've seen commented above. SwisterTwister   talk  07:49, 1 May 2016 (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.