Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The American Economist


 * 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 redirect to Omicron Delta Epsilon. Any usable content may be merged from the page history at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The American Economist

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases (only some non-selective ones are listed on its website), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator with reason (on talk page): "it more than satisfies the "notability" criteria for academic journals. 23 different Nobel Prize winners have published 29 articles in the journal over the years. The list includes very famous economists such as Milden Friedman and Paul Samuelson. Furthermore, the journal is indexed and archived by JSTORE, the premier and highly selective repository of leading journal backfiles across all major academic fields. The journal is also indexed and cataloged through many readily available bibliographic services including EBSCO, and more importantly for an economics journal, ECONLIT. I will make edits to the page indicating these facts and providing proper references." However, notability is not inherited and the databases listed are not selective in the sense of NJournals. ECONLIT strives to be all-inclusive. Therefore, PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * From the JSTOR website itself: "JSTOR is a highly selective digital library of academic content in many formats and disciplines. The collections include top peer-reviewed scholarly journals as well as respected literary journals, academic monographs, research reports from trusted institutes, and primary sources." (https://about.jstor.org/whats-in-jstor/)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagemcgowan (talk • contribs) 15:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Yep, they sure put in an effort to sell their access platform. Unfortunately, as far as I know, we have never accepted inclusion in JSTOR as evidence of notability in these kind of discussions. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * From the City University of New York Graduate Center Library: "Not every journal  will be in JSTOR, and most never will be." https://gclibrary.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2013/10/28/jstor-not-the-only-game-in-town/


 * From the New York Public Library: "JSTOR  A searchable, digitized archive -- from the first date of publication to the last three to five years -- of major scholarly journals in many academic fields."  https://www.nypl.org/collections/articles-databases/jstor  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagemcgowan (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * From Cambridge University: "JSTOR is a high-quality, interdisciplinary archive of scholarship that includes leading academic journals across the arts, humanities, social sciences and sciences." https://www.alumni.cam.ac.uk/benefits/journals-and-online-resources/jstor  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagemcgowan (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment The CUNY Library page is saying that JSTOR is incomplete, not that it is necessarily selective. The others say that JSTOR includes "major" or "leading" journals, which is true, but they are not evidence that it is limited to them. I can't recall inclusion in JSTOR ever being accepted as evidence of notability, and I don't think we should start. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Omicron Delta Epsilon, the publisher, where it is already mentioned. I can't see the case for a stand-alone article, but it is worthwhile discussing along with the society's other activities. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not delete. Could be a merge to Omicron Delta Epsilon however. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll join Headbomb's not delete with merge to Omicron Delta at minimum. There does appear to be some referencing for it, but it's a weak case so merge/redirect isn't an awful idea. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete because subject distinctly lacks independent notability, as it does not meet WP:NJOURNALS, and replace with a Redirect to the journal's publisher at Omicron Delta Epsilon. -The Gnome (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Omicron Delta Epsilon.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2019 (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.