Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual and Gender Diversity in Social Services


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  02:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Sexual and Gender Diversity in Social Services

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

There is a dearth of coverage in reliable, secondary sources, to establish the notability of this journal, as reflected by no secondary sources having been cited in the article for the last 15 years. The only external link/source in the article is to the journal's homepage. I did not have much success in finding any suitable secondary sources, either under the journal's current or former name. Fails WP:GNG. MaterialsPsych (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Sexuality and gender. MaterialsPsych (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. This journal got this name just this year, before it was called Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services. Under that name, Miar lists quite a few databases, among them Scopus, that index the journal. WP:NJournals explains why I think that this means that this journal meets WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the indexing of this journal in different databases alone sufficient to demonstrate significant coverage and, ultimately, notability? You cite WP:NJOURNALS (which I reviewed before filing this nomination and will note is an essay, not a policy or guideline) and seem to be arguing that the journal meets criterion 1, specifically criterion 1b. Please correct me if I am mistaken. This specific criterion was subject to an extensive discussion a few months ago, where (if I'm reading it correctly) no consensus was reached as to whether a journal being indexed in "selective" databases is by itself sufficient to confer notability. Without providing my own opinion as to whether or not I believe a journal meeting this criterion is a sufficient indicator of notability, do any other secondary sources exist, besides these databases, that would help provide evidence for this journal's notability? MaterialsPsych (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, NJournals is an essay that explains why I think that inclusion in selective databases means that this meets GNG. Other people think differently, so is life. --Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article currently has no independent sources and I was unable to find any. so the topic fails WP:GNG. WP:NJOURNALS says that Independent, third-party sources must exist for every topic that receives its own article on Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: The reason that you don't find much is that the journal just changed its name with the first issue of 2024. I have expanded the article and added 6 references, 5 of them independent third party sources. WP:HEY. --Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I looked for sources using the old name, but possibly I didn't look hard enough. I will look at your sources shortly. TSventon (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS, indexed in several selective databases and the official journal of several notable societies. That the new title gives little google hits is irrelevant. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't meet GNG. Does seem like a real and meaningful journal covering an important topic.  We really need to find a WP:NJOURNALS that can get consensus to become a guideline.  If I were king I'd probably put this just on the border of being something we should have.  Seems to be about the median for the field.  Impact score, if sources I'm finding can be trusted, is fairly low but rising.  reluctant weak delete GNG not met, no SNG met.  Almost an IAR keep from me. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I point to a relevant section of WP:N that seems to be overlooked some deletion discussions: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. If the only secondary coverage of this journal are various listings of it in different databases, that seems to barely, if at all, qualify as "significant coverage", and it seems unlikely that much more could ever be written about this journal besides the barebones factual information that is currently included in the article (I will concede that the quality and comprehensiveness of the article has improved somewhat compared to when I opened this discussion, but that doesn't have a bearing on the subject's notability). Such listings in databases may add to the "credibility" of the journal, but credibility is not the same thing as notability. I've seen the two occasionally get mixed together in different deletion discussions about academic journals (not specifically this current one), as I've gone back and read over them. I don't see how they are entirely the same thing. A journal can be credible and publish "good" research without being particularly notable according to Wikipedia's standards, and this journal does seem to fall into this area. There is nothing that seems to be particularly noteworthy about this journal when it is compared to all the other similarly situated journals out there that would support or warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia. Since NJOURNALS is an essay, not an SNG that enjoys broader community consensus, I fall back to GNG, and I still remain unconvinced that this particular journal has received the significant coverage necessary to meet GNG. Until such time that NJOURNALS enjoys a broader acceptance by the community than it currently does, and there is a more convincing case made that a journal being listed in certain databases automatically provides significant coverage and makes it notable, this is where I find myself. MaterialsPsych (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Additionally, there is no consensus that meeting NJOURNALS establishes notability. Per MaterialsPsych, establishing consensus for NJOURNALS is beyond the scope of an AfD discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Randykitty and Headbomb — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.