Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The American Journal of Economics and Sociology


 * 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. – bradv  🍁  03:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a legitimate journal but not an impactful one per WP:NJOURNALS. It is ranked in the bottom quartile of economics journals by impact factor and I am unable to find any substantial third-party coverage of it. Per WP:V, "If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable)." buidhe 21:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. buidhe 21:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 21:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Speedy keep- historically impactful journal. WP:NEXIST
 * 1) American Institute for Economic Research
 * 2) Worldcat
 * 3) etc. Lightburst (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that the first link provided is a link to an article published in the journal, #2 is a non-selective database, and as for the claim that it's a "historically impactful journal", . <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 22:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - It may be a high quality journal, but I've been unable to find coverage of it in secondary sources (particularly when you include "-foldvary" in the search to exclude all results that say "Foldvary is notably known for going on record in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology in 1997 to predict the exact timing of the 2008 economic depression—eleven years before the event occurred"). The WP:NJOURNAL page seems to indicate that means it's not notable and should be deleted. It could be that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON and that in time the journal will gain notability. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:NJOURNALS, is indexed in both JCR and Scopus / has impact factor and SciImago Journal Rank, as well as several other major/selective databases (see ). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Moreover, I don't quite see the rationale for excluding sources that refer to a specific paper published in the journal. Granted, they're not directly discussing the history of the journal itself, in the strictest sense (like the date of its founding or the changes in its editorial board), but fundamentally, journals are worth documenting when they have published significant work. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment are there any substantial independent sources that actually go into detail about the journal? I don't think there's much value in creating an article that is entirely based on primary sources and database entries. Any of the "Foldvary" sources are just passing mentions that wouldn't count towards GNG. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 19:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the WP:JOURNALCRIT is The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources - which it does seem to be. Per the same page, If a journal meets any of the following criteria, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, it qualifies for a stand-alone article. Now obviously WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, not policy, but I would argue its recommendations are sensible in this case. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 20:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * NJOURNALS also says "It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Independent, third-party sources must exist for every topic that receives its own article on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.")." I believe that this means we should not create articles on journals when there's no substantial independent coverage of them. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 23:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Except we have those, we have JCR and Scopus for notability. And we have a lot of WP:ABOUTSELF-permitted sources for other content. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.