Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Multidisciplinary Research

:{{la|Journal of Multidisciplinary Research}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Multidisciplinary_Research Stats])

:({{Find sources|Journal of Multidisciplinary Research}})

Non-notable academic journal. Article created by journal's editor. Prod removed by an SPA. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - I was ready to vote keep thinking this is an academic journal and should almost be kept automatically, but I could not find any articles about this journal. Maybe it is too new. WP:NotJustYet Maybe if somebody can find some articles it would be a keep. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Can someone comment on "abstracted and indexed in ProQuest and EBSCO databases"? Are they not enough? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think so. In a previous AfD this also came up and I asked User:DGG about this (who is very knowledgeable in this area and usually an inclusionist) and DGG didn't think these databases were sufficiently selective and major to confer notability. That must be somewhere on his talk page or its archives, but I'm a bit too short in time right now to look up exactly where. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find any articles from this journal using Web of Knowledge which is my preferred wide-band search tool for academic journals. Contrary to what is claimed, it doesn't seem to be indexed by ProQuest (at least, I couldn't find any articles from it on there.) An example of the journal is available [http://www.stu.edu/Portals/0/JME2spring.pdf here] (which is in itself a little odd as most academic journals are behind paywalls.) I'm trying to assume good faith, but from the list of article authors, the editorial board and the adverts on the back cover for St. Thomas University (Florida) it looks rather like an in-house production from that University to give its faculty and students a low-risk option for getting articles published in a respectable-sounding title. I don't think it meets the basic requirements for a notable academic journal. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Just to be fair: nowadays many journals are open access and not behind a paywall. And even those that are (especially new journals) often put one or two issues for free on the web, as a kind of sampler to show people what they get when they subscribe. Concerning the board, we usually don't pay too much attention to that as notability is not inherited, but in this case, you're indeed right that the fact that this is very "Florida-centric" (and the whole editorial team in addition being from STU) does not give much confidence that this will develop, in time, to be a significant journal. But that is, of course, crystal-ball gazing... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Hello, there are several points providing ample support that the Journal of Multidisciplinary Research is a “notable and acceptable” publication for Wikipedia:Bulleted list item
• The journal was founded in 2009 and already has reached quite notable accomplishments with global content and articles from authors in a variety of leading universities.
• It is indexed and/or licensed by ProQuest, EBSCO, Gale/Cengage, and deGruyer – all global leaders in specialized information resources and important search engines – the “Googles” of academic research, if you will.
• It has both print and electronic ISSN numbers (1947-2900 and 1947-290x), and it is available in both print and online formats.
• It was reviewed by a staff person from the Harvard University Library and received high marks.
• It is open source, in order to help disseminate high quality academic research, like many other academic journals.Emiliastu (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment In the order you listed them:
• This is not for us to judge. We need reliable sources that substantiate this.
• None of these are selective databases (just like Google is not selective).
• Any publication can have ISSNs, that doesn't mean anything.
• Really? Is there a reference for that in a reliable source?
• Being open access is nothing special either.
• Please see WP:GNG and WP:NJournals to see what makes something notable. The arguments you give are not convincing at all. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

For lay scholar, articles from the journal are easily accessible from Google and Google Scholar.

The journal is truly multidisciplinary in that a variety of scientific articles are published from a multitude of disciplines.

The journal comes with a notable list of editorial board members –each distinguished contributors of their respective fields.– — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr79 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Sr79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Again addressing each comment in turn:
• # Easily accessible isn't notable.
• # Truly multidisciplinary doesn't really mean anything: basically you're telling me this is a journal about anything and everything. It's truly hard to be good at anything and everything.
• # What "notable list of editorial board members" would that be? As I look through the [http://jmrpublication.org/node/11 list of Review Board members], I can find little or no information about these people, other than that, for the most part, they exist. (Some even seem to fail that criterion.) For the one or two whose CVs I can find, they don't seem to mention membership on this editorial board. Do they even know they have been selected for this honor? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• : In sum, your argument amounts to "I like it", which doesn't really carry much weight. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - To the newer people who want to keep this article, please remember that if in the future references that meet the guidelines appear in Reliable Sources, an article about this journal would be appropriate. It is not "never," rather "not yet," as things are - WP:NotJustYet. Hoppingalong (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:GNG and per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NJournals. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2012 (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.