Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journal of Specialised Translation


 * 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. After two relists and no further arguments made to delete, there appears to be no great urgency on the part of the community to remove this article.  A  Train ''talk 10:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The Journal of Specialised Translation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. None of the databases in which the journal claims to be indexed are selective, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "MLA is the most selective index in the field". However, examination of the MLA website makes it clear that this index strives for comprehensiveness within its subject, so that it i snot a selective index in the sense of NJournals. Therefore, PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as the only journal in its field. Also one of the more significant journals in the broader field of translation studies. StAnselm (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Specialized translation is a very small specialization. It would be amazing if such a small field would be served by multiple journals. The list you link to, "is open for editing; please feel free to add or correct details" and seems to be an exhaustive list of journals in the field of translation studies. Neither of your comments seems to indicate any notability. --Randykitty (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the page links to another list that is "open for editing". StAnselm (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep. Lack of indexing in major selective databases does not help in ascertaining compliance with WP:GNG. However, I suspect recognised journals in niché fields might not be much bothered with listings, and considering that Google returns around 670 hits of "specialised translation"+jostrans, I would give it benefit of doubt. Another issue I have is that the article successfully cleared AfC – it will not look serious if we first promote it from draft to mainspace and subsequently delete it. — kashmiri  TALK  00:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:GHITS? And are you proposing that for journals in niche fields we should "not be bothered" with any considerations of notability (or even independent sources)? And if some editor lets something slip through AFC, that means we have to waive all our usual requirements? (You apparently don't see the AFC-cleared articles that I sometimes see...) You can't be serious. --Randykitty (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with GHITS in principle, but as regards modern-day academic publishing I venture to say there is a direct correlation between influence (and therefore notability) of an online academic journal and its online presence. If a journal is widely quoted in a number of independent online sources, then we get a hint it may be notable. Do you work in the field of specialised translation? I guess not. Me neither. above pointed to a published academic book (WP:SECONDARY) that clearly says this journal is an important one in its field. Me, then, I pointed to how widely it is linked to. See, we have been editing on the same subjects for a long time, so I am not going to fight nails and teeth about this article, but in all fairness I think you are mixing up a well-established, 13-years-old journal resulting from international co-operation of several state universities in Europe, albeit in a niche field, with some local initiatives of yesteryear we come across too many. —  kashmiri  TALK  09:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 (c)  22:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:12, 28 April 2017 (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.