Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interface: a journal for and about social movements (2nd nomination)

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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update - for editors who are interested, I have provided a rationale for this close on my talk page here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interface: a journal for and about social movements

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent reliable sources exist, let alone significant coverage as required per WP:GNG. The two principle keep votes of the last AfD were from editors with conflicts of interest. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible DELETE and SALT, per utter lack of WP:RS, per wanton WP:SPAM, and per double WP:COI. Since this AfD has the potential to explode quickly into personal charges and counter-charges, I am going to summarize the evidence as quickly and politely as possible, and then hope that everyone will keep his head. First of all, anyone whose name appears on this table of contents [1] should, in the interest of academic integrity and objectivity, recuse himself from participating in this debate. The backstory is this: The editor of this journal, who is a total WP:SPA acting out of WP:COI, is here to promote his journal. One of the ways he has done so is to WP:SPAM direct links to his website on at least ten other WP articles. When confronted with this behavior, he replied that he is an academic and a scholar who is primarily concerned with citation, citation, citation, and that everyone who calls him on WP:COI, WP:SPAM, and WP:SPA has failed to understand citation, because these critics are not scholars. The mile-high irony in all of this is that the article he wrote about his own journal is utterly lacking in a single acceptable WP:RS citation!!! The journal is not even remotely notable, not by any previous Wikipedia guideline, policy, or convention. These points were made at the previous AfD by editors other than myself, and the article was kept only because of lack of consensus. This lack occurred only because the magazine's editor and--as it turns out--one of the magazine's actual contributors managed to polarize the discussion. Obviously, both of them should recuse themselves this time around, and this matter should finally be decided by WP:RS and the notability guidelines for journals. Qworty (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per IRWolfie. It exists, but I've found no indication of its actual notability under the most applicable guidelines such as WP:BKCRIT. It even fails WP:GNG, which requires substantial third-party coverage. No comment on WP:COI — the previous no-consensus discussion is in no way binding here. JFHJr (㊟) 03:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources. Not listed in a single selective database. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Salt given the blatant COI voting in the previous AFD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh chill the hey out. From what I can see in the previous AfD there was a single vote by a person associated with the journal and that person was perfectly upfront and honest about his connection. And it looks like that what he got for that upfrontness and honesty was to be set upon by some zealots who tried to get him blocked or sanctioned. I really don't understand where this obsession for some of the people comes from. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agrue below that it meets WP:NJournals. And if you want to discard it, I think over 90% of our articles on journals don't meet GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is a relatively helpful essay, but not a guideline. Even it notes that "for journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information." A big failing of this essay is that it does not deal with open content publication. In the era of Academic Spring, what is notable in the field of journals is very much in the air. With a disclaimer that I am a sociologist, with a specialization in (among others) social movement area, and having published in journals in that field, including this one, I think it is imperative to note we only have four or so journals which specialize in social movements. Interface is the newest one, and the only open content one. I think those two facts make it notable in the field, but it's very difficult to prove it using our notability guidelines. Not long ago we had a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Notability_of_learned_societies_with_weak_coverage, and the consensus was that for a lot of academic organizations (and journals, even more so), there are few if any reliable sources - yet that doesn't mean those organizations (journals) are not notable. In fact, an editor in a closing statement suggested we use IAR over GNG when dealing with some academic topics, and I think this is important in this case. To repeat myself: this is one of only four journals in the field of social movement studies, and the only open content one. It is an important and notable journal in this (tiny) field. As such, I strongly believe this article should be kept. PS. Also, I'd like to point to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Indigenous_Studies. DGG made a point there that it is an "distinctive and notable as a pioneering journal of its type", and as noted by HEADBOMB at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals)#Superseded, such cases may well fall under "has a historic purpose or has a significant history", which in this case I'd interpret as "this is the first open content journal in the field of social movement studies, and this gives it a historic purpose." PPS. The editors here may also want to check Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Laurence_Cox, as I think some people here may have developed a rather strong personal dislike towards this journal and the editor who created it, which may be influencing their votes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has made publications in this journal and has a conflict of interest. Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is an essay, anyone can write an essay, I could write an essay stating the opposite of its conclusions. If there was any consensus that Journals didn't have to meet GNG then Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) would be a guideline, but it's not. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what. If you publish in say, Quarterly Journal of Economics, that does not mean you are not allowed to write about the QJE. In fact it makes you qualified (remember that word? does it exist on Wikipedia?) to write about the QJE. You really need to let this go and drop the obsessive hounding. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a journal that prints hundreds of articles, it's a small journal that prints maybe 40 articles a year. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more time. So. What. Volunteer Marek 18:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotrus and the fact that the journal appears to be notable, if new. The thing I *don't* get however is the obsession and zealotry on display here. IRWolfie and Qworty participated in this COI thread where they were basically screaming for the editor's head. Both editors have a pretty basic misunderstanding of what WP:COI is and says. And they both, at least in my view, have acted in an extremely rude and obnoxious manner towards the author of this article. This AfD in fact appears to be a continuation of this behavior and is bordering on WP:HARASSMENT now. But of course, since it is directed against a newbie, there's a fat chance that it will be reigned in. Ah Wikipedia.... Volunteer Marek 17:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your main argument is keep because it's notable? Adding links to a journal you are an editor of isn't a conflict of interest? Defending links to said journal when they point to a review of yours isn't a conflict of interest? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually bother to read WP:COI, rather than just screaming those words mindlessly all over the place, you might note that having a COI does not prevent a person from editing an article on a given subject, particularly if the author is upfront about their connections (which the author here has been). I see nothing wrong with adding links to a journal one is an editor of, if that is standard practice for academic journals (which it seems like it should be). Who cares who does it? You are really becoming obsessed with this issue and are getting way over the top in your comment. Step back, take a deep breath and relax a bit. Volunteer Marek 18:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. COI purpose is to prevent disruptive edits. For all the screaming about COI, COI, COI, nobody has yet shown that any of Lawrence edits were disruptive; he has been linking the topical issues of his journal to relevant pages on Wikipedia (as in, for example, linking the Interface issue on Arab Spring to the Arab Spring article). Adding links to relevant peer reviewed works to an article is constructive, not disruptive. End of story, other than for those who want to wikilawyer for the fun of it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The journal, now in its fourth year, has published at least one prize-winning article, and is publishing in six languages to-date. It is an interesting, hybrid, open-access journal, crossing both scholarship and advocacy. The broad list of contributing editors is indicative of its standing in both communities. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage in secondary sources which would show this is the case? What was the prize? Being published in multiple languages, or being interesting don't show notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles from the journal are being cited by other scholars, as indicated in Google Scholar. The journal is young yet, so these will only increase over time. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, when the topic is actually notable then recreate the article; but not before that. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The prize is mentioned at [2], awarded by the Surveillance Studies Network, which seems like a major professional academic association in the field of surveillance studies (of course our coverage of those topics is terrible, just like we don't have an article on the social movement studies - but that doesn't mean they are not notable). And stop joking about significant coverage of anything academia. I challenge you to find significant coverage of any award given by a major academic body, such as those by the American Sociological Association. Moving on. Journal_of_Indigenous Studies (AfD linked above) was kept with one of the main arguments being that it's published in Cree, and to quote DGG again from that AfD, "the academic journal informal guidelines we use did not take account of situations like this, so we must use our own judgment". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is "terrible" because the sources just don't exist. Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources? Here is a similar AfD about a new journal: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Journal_of_Cancer_Research. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Surveillance Studies Network and its prizes seem to be insignificant and are not additive to notability. If there were some independent coverage of the prize itself to support the contention that the prize matters at all, that would be another thing. I'm coming up with zero, aside from primary sources. They're not enough to indicate the import of having won a prize. Still, WP:GNG on Interface itself is utterly lacking. JFHJr (㊟) 18:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, GNG on 90% of academic organizations and journals is lacking. I am open to developing better notability criteria for academia, but till such a time, I go with IAR over GNG in those cases, as I believe it leads to a better encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One other indication of the journal's standing, even in its youth, is the support it has been given from the International Sociological Association. An article by one of the journal's editors appears in the ISA's newsletter, Global Dialog. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Piotrus asked me to comment on whether he cited me correctly in context: he did--unusual journals need to be judged other than by our usual standards. This is not an academic journal in the customary way: "our collaborators review each piece with regards to both its activist and academic potential."^[1] In other words, it's a journal of advocacy as much as of scholarship. Not all the contents are formal articles, but I've read a sampling of the ones that are, and they seem to meet the usual standards, though the political commitment is often obvious. Piotrus, I am surprised that the journal has no statement of being indexed anywhere. I would have thought it would be. The academic content would seem sufficient for that. (btw, I don't think having merely published in the journal is a COI--being it's editor would be.) DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding indexing, I think Lawrence may be better suited to answering this, if he joins the debate. My understanding is that it is rather difficult to become indexed, particularly for an open content publication in social sciences. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems in direct contradiction to statements of its high standing by other keep voters. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed a contradiction. As DGG also asks, why isn't it indexed anywhere? That the fact that this is an OA journal somehow plays a role is nonsense. Many OA journals are now respected and established and are included in all major databases in their fields. If anything, being OA should help: it's supposed to lead to higher visibility and, hence, having more impact on their fields. And that is exactly how databases select which journals to cover: those that have impact. If a journal is not indexed, of course that doesn't prove that it is not notable, it means that there is no evidence for notability. Which is what we are here for to establish. As for whether having published an article in a journal is a COI, I'm not a sure as others here that this is so or not. Piotrus has been here long enough to know how to remain neutral, but not everybody is like that. I remember a case a while ago where some editor was warring over additions of critical text to our article on Nova Publishers and inserting highly promotional text. The apparent reason for doing this was showing that he himself was notable and that his bio should be kept. Coming back to the current case, we must have criteria and NJournals is as good as anything. GNG would, as Piotrus rightly remarks, lead to the deletion of most of our articles on academic journals, which would clearly be undesirable. However, we shouldn't err in the other direction either. One of the negative side-effects of the OA movement has been the emergence of some so-called "predatory" publishers/journals, trying to make a quick buck (contrary to "classical" journal publishing, requiring large investments that take years to recoup, OA journals generate money from the start; respectable OA publishers put in a lot of effort to have articles reviewed/typeset, etc, but these predatory journals, of course, don't anything like that). I don't think it would be good if our criteria became so weak that these journals would also get articles, because our editing rules would prohibit us from mentioning that these journals are predatory, unless we would have reliable sources for that. Given that these predatory journals unsurprisingly remain marginal (for instance, never get included in any database apart from DOAJ or Google Scholar), such sources would be hard to come by. Better to keep them out. Hence, we need clear criteria. I surmise that "this is published in 6 languages" or "the articles look solid to me" are not clear and objective criteria and we should stay away from them. If this journal is as solid and important as people here think, then it will be a matter of time (and probably not much) before it is included in any selective major databases. When that happens, we should have an article about it. But not earlier. Sorry for this long post... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that some journals may not be reliable, but Interface is not a for-profit journal. That aside, I think our differences stem from a fact that you require an inclusion is a citation index as a minimum criteria for notability of a journal, whereas I believe that being one of the few journals in a small field, and/or having some unique qualities (such as being the first OA journal in a said field) makes the journal notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I think we need something more solid. Using "Piotrus' rule", if tomorrow somebody starts an obscure predatory journal in 8 languages in a small field, they could claim notability following your argumentation. Having WP editors decide which journal is a serious one and which is not, based upon our interpretation of their contents would be completely against all principles we have here and lead to subjective and perhaps capricious decisions. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many journals are not for profit. You are saying it has unique qualities, but it appears to be you that determines uniqueness. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? And how is this different from your "OR" in denying the uniqueness? It seems like Kali's morality to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article to be kept, the burden is on you to show notability. It is not on me to show non-notability as I can only indicate what I have failed to find; I can't prove there are no secondary sources for sure, I can only be able to show that I could not locate any and that there is an Absence of evidence for notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. In which case we simply have to agree to disagree, as I explained above. You consider GNG sufficient for academic journals, I don't, and in the absence of a recognized other policy, with AJN not yet to the guideline level, we have to rely on other arguments. You are not convinced by mine, I am not convinced by yours. Let's see what others think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just me, there is good reason WP:NJOURNAL is an essay, and that's because there is no consensus for it to be the criteria, in the absence of other guidelines only WP:GNG applies, and this article has no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fundamentally, all other arguments are not P&G based but subjective opinions. (It doesn't meet WP:NJOURNAL anyway, it doesn't meet criteria 1 or 3 straight off, and doesn't appear to meet 2 either) IRWolfie- (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that DA Sonnenfeld makes a relevant point in arguing for the preservation of the article. The nominator's statement about who participated in a previous AfD is irrelevant to the discussion of the merits of the article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that what happened in the first AFD is irrelevant for this discussion. But what about the complete absence of any reliable sources? That irrelevant, too? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about a complete absence, since the subject is cited in a number of books: [3]. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are (relatively few) citations to articles that were published in this journal. Given that we usually expect at least several hundreds of citations before we deem a single researcher notable, this definitely does not seem enough to establish notability for a whole journal. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're really eager to kill this thing off, aren't you? :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, you spotted an elephant in the (AfD) room :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eager or not, we have notability standards. We can either apply such standards, or do away with them and then this'll become just another social networking site. Any journal will get some GHits, which is why I don't think that the citations that you came up with are sufficient to establish notability for this one. As for my remark about single individuals and citations, have a look over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: And if you check some of the hits by searching within the books for "Interface", you'll see that some of these are not hits at all (see this one, for example). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of any specialized guideline, the WP:GNG applies. After much searching, I have to conclude that sources on this journal don't exist, other than the journal and other self-published sites. Needs independent coverage to establish notability. Vcessayist (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[1]