Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revista Cubana de Física


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Revista Cubana de Física

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't verify any of the content of this article, which was apparently created at the request of the editor of the obscure journal in question. One directory says it started in 2012, the article says 1980, it doesn't appear to have its own web domain and the official website, which is also the page linked in most directories, is effectively a university user's personal page, and is in any case 404. I suppose this probably existed, but evidence of its significance, impact, or coverage in other sources, is lacking. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain Delete [changed vote, per my comment under Randykitty's section] . I've edited the article, entering what I believe is the new url for its web site -- but that doesn't mean much of anything, other than to give some credence to the description in Wikipedia's article. I also found reference to its existence in WorldCat, but again that means little. I tried fumbling my way through some of the Google hits as to importance of the journal. I'm admittedly ignorant in this area, but the sites seemed to indicate that the journal has little importance. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I have updated the links in the article and added another database in which the journal is indexed. I have also added two independent sources. The journal is indexed in Scopus, meeting WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh? Saying it is indexed by SCOPUS and referencing this to the index listing is not an independent source. There are still no sources about the journal, we can't even authoritatively answer the question of whether it still exists. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It still exists, all links in the article have been updated to the new website and these substantiate the info given in the article (I can include that as references, but in a short stub like this, I find using repeated references to -different pages of- a home website mildly promotional). The reference for Scopus goes to the page where the journal listings are linked. Click on them and you get an Excel file that lists all journals included in Scopus. I used to link directly to the Excel file, but that's not good, because the name of the file changes each time they update it (and the Excel file then pops up without any explanation of what it is). Scopus only includes journals after a committee of academics has vetted it and deemed it worthy for inclusion, so it is one of the "inclusive databases" mentioned in NJournals. Academic journals are rarely the subject of articles in other media. That does pose a problem. If you delve into the history of NJournals (still only an essay), you'll see that it stayed an essay because people objected to making it a guideline on two mutually exclusive ground: one group thought it was too inclusive and that we should rigorously apply GNG (incorrect, I think). Another group though it was too discriminating and that any journal that can be used in WP as a reliable source should be taken to be notable (also wrong, I think). NJournals takes the position that a thorough examination by a committee of academics (as done by Scopus) constitutes in-depth coverage an indicates notability. Note that "selective" here means that perhaps one in 5 journals or less makes it through the application process, so journals listed in Scopus (or in the even more selective Thomson Reuters databases - but not the Emerging Sources Citation Index, BTW) are really the top journals in their respective fields. --Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Randykitty, thanks for that carefully thought out response. I had seen the essay WP:NJournals, but was worried that there was no consensus that it should be a guideline. However, I think you've made a fair point. I'm going to change my !vote to 'Abstain', in the hope that other more knowledgable people will chime in. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Added (22:15, April 22, 2016): Keep as DGG's commentary is convincing enough to suggest keeping. Before I comment, I'm inviting for his familiar analysis with these subjects.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * keep. I consider the actual situation a little ambiguous. There is agreement that WoS establishes notability ,except for its related database ESBI, which does not. The question is whether Scopus does. I used to think so, and nowI am not so sure, because it seems to have much less discriminating coverage. But outside of Western Europe and the US, its coverage has always not just more inclusive but probably more realistic than WoS, so I would tend to accept it for such areas. That's all that's needed to estalish notability for a journal. Personally I am one of those who would prefer to change our rule to accept any journal usable at WP, but, as Randykitty says, that does not have consensus.   DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 12:38, 24 April 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.