Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spatial Demography (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 delete.  Sandstein  07:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Spatial Demography (journal)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reasons given on the article's talk page:
 * Journal indexed in selective databases, including PubMed and EBSCO
 * Notability of journal indicated by citation of secondary source on spatial demography citing the journal as valid source of information on the subject.
 * See above bullet point - secondary source cited in the article
 * Per WP:NJournals - criterion 1 and 2 met by information in above-mentioned information, so does meet WP:NJournals requirements.

Unfortunately, this reasoning is faulty. EBSCO databases are not selective. PubMed indexing is trivial: it only concerns those manuscripts that have been deposited in PubMed Central, which is not selective either. The "secondary source" is an article that does not mention this journal at all, except in a listing of resources in an appendix. Hence, PROD reason still stands, this meets neither GNG nor NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One question and one comment apropos this response. First, does the Academic Journals WikiProject, or any comparable authority, provide a list of selective databases? WP:NJournals doesn't seem to provide one, stating under criteria 1, "Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus. Being included in comprehensive (i.e. non-selective) indices and services like Google Scholar and the Directory of Open Access Journals are not sufficient to establish notability". Further, Spatial Demography is included in the Emerging Sources Citation Index; is this not a selective database? Second, the paper by authors Stephen A. Matthews and Daniel M. Parker entitled "Progress in Spatial Demography", cited as evidence of notability, mentions Spatial Demography on page 272, in both the introduction and a footnote. To say that the article "does not mention this journal at all, except in a listing of resources in an appendix" is erroneous. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ESCI is not selective enough. It has been shown to even contain some predatory journals (not saying this is a predatory one, just citing this as support for ESCI not being very selective). And I did indeed miss the in-passing mention of this journal on p. 272 of the cited article, but that's all it is, an in-passing mention of a journal that at that point was only in the planning stages yet. (So it's of course not surprising that there's no in depth discussion of this journal yet). As for a list of selective databases, no, we don't have that. It depends on the field. For religion journals, ATLA is considered a selective database. For this journal, I'd say Scopus would be their best bet to get covered. But for the moment, they aren't. So at best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See for a summary of ESCI, particularly this passage . WP:NJOURNALS applies here. The paper that mentions this journal simply states the journal exists, and offers no commentary on the journal itself beyond that. This is trivial coverage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 22:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 22:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, completely fails WP:NJOURNALS. Simply put, this is a textbook case of WP:TOOSOON. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲 水 08:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails GNG.-Kishfan (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2018 (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.