Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice


 * 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 (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is part of a set of 300+ articles created by an employee of the publisher. It is a minor journal with one reference that lists only a ranking. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG -- Jreferee (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 5.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 13:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not sure if this fails WP:NJOURNALS, which explains that "having an impact factor assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Reports always qualifies under Criterion 1". Here, Journal Citation Reports gives this journal an impact factor of 1.585. Also, this journal may be abstracted/indexed in significant databases. I'm leaning toward keeping this, but I'm willing to be persuaded if someone can show me why this fails WP:NJournals. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration, I have concluded that this article passes WP:NJournals; I have updated my vote accordingly. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Many articles on Sage journals have been created by employees of the publisher, but I cleaned up a good deal of them. In any case, having been created by a COI editor does not necessarily mean that something should be deleted (unless it qualifies for G11, spam). In the present case, the journal is indexed in Scopus and the Social Sciences Citation index, both selective databases in the sense of WP:NJournals, so this is a clear pass. Sourcing of the article could be better (see WP:JWG and my user page for tips) and it should be updated, but the sources are there and this is a clear pass of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:NJOURNAL #2 (and per ) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as noted above, this seems keepable. SwisterTwister   talk  08:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:12, 11 January 2016 (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.