Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Tagged for notability for 1.5 years. Although its website lists an impressive number of indexing databases, it clearly says: "We want Tamara Journal indexed and abstracted in the following services". Indeed, there is no evidence that the journal is actually indexed in any selective databases. There are no third party sources either. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." DePRODded by SPA editor with edit summary: "DOAJ added". DOAJ is not a selective database and, indeed, mention of it is usually removed from articles. EBSCO databases are not selective either. The other reference in the article ("Academic Journal Quality Guide") comes from the "Association of Business Schools" and does indeed list this journal, but it seems to list almost any journal in this field and is obviously not a selective listing (and on top of that, Tamara gets pretty low ratings on this list). Therefore, PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Although WP:NJournals is an essay it does reiterate that "articles on academic journals are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice" which holds as one of the pillars of Wikipedia. This Journal does not shine as something that is notable.  It is not of unusual quality or having a lasting impression.  Other then "it exists" there is no other WP:RS for passing WP:N - Pmedema (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Opinion - As a person with a COI I just want to point out that ABS list is by no means listing "any journal in this field" - it only lists journals notable according to ABS. I can name a good number of relatively recognized journals not listed there. The point about EBSCO not being selective is also not entirely true (although probably truer, since ABS is a ranking of notable journals, while EBSCO is a commercial database). EBSCO definitely is selective and it is not entirely easy to get any journal there, since they want to include only those of academic journals that can increase, rather than decrease the value of EBSCO subscription. Pundit | utter  22:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I do not consider Ebsco sufficiently selective to use as a criterion. They will include essentially any regularly published journal that they can, because one of their major selling points is the number of titles included--nobody uses it because of quality, because too many of the quality sources in it have time restrictions. I do consider the ABS list as a relevant factor--but not just mere inclusion in the list. Of the 5 possible classifications  in that list, 1,  2, 3, 4, 4*, this journal is rated in category 1, the very lowest.  DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 20 December 2013 (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.