- 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 delete. Yunshui 雲 水 14:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The Internet Journal of Biological Anthropology
- The Internet Journal of Biological Anthropology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was dePRODded wuth reason 'AfD would be a more suitable venue'. PROD reason was: " Predatory OA journal, not indexed in any selective database (only briefly in Scopus). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Why this need to go to AfD is beyond me, but here we are: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 22:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Close WP:NPASR Anger management issues.
Unscintillating (
talk) 01:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Huh? How can we be at "no consensus" before the discussion has even started? — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NJournals. There are thousands of these bogus and equally-non-notable "journals" out there; do we really need an article on each of them? An article on its publisher might be appropriate, if the publisher is *notable* for being a predatory open-access publisher rather than merely being included on a list, but even that has not been demonstrated. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Clear fail of WP:NJournals. -- 101.117.89.21 ( talk) 02:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. (1) NJournals is not an SNG. (2) Deleting this article altogether, without even a redirect, appears to remove the "warning" that it provides (namely that the journal is a predatory OA journal). Some of our readers and editors might be completely unaware of Beall's list. James500 ( talk) 04:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- NJournals is indeed not an SNG and was designed to make it easier for academic journals to be judged as notable. So if something misses NJournals, it's basically a certainty that it misses GNG, too. (Note that both the PROD and this nom include a reference to GNG). -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable journal lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not in the business of retaining non-notable articles to "warn" readers and editors about predatory journals. Philg88 ♦ talk 06:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I just found and removed four Wikipedia article references based on this journal and three external links to the journal itself. None were wikilinked to our article here. So obviously having an article as a warning that the journal is predatory and unreliable isn't working, even if that were a valid reason to keep (which I don't think it is). — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- In order to comment on that, I think I would have to know whether the rate at which citations are being added for predatory journals without WP articles is higher than the rate for those with WP articles, and then determine whether any such difference was statistically significant. I don't think I am in a position to do that. I think that might be a major undertaking. James500 ( talk) 15:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC) (It has been a long time since I last studied statistics, and I apologise in advance if I am inadvertantly talking nonsense.) James500 ( talk) 16:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. This journal not notable according to
WP:NJournals, and the Beale reference refers to publishers, not this journal specifically. Also, this needs to be deleted because it serves to
publicizepromote a journal produced by a predatory OA publisher WP:NOTPROMOTION. Please see What Wikipedia is not for further insight. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:18, 19 August 2014 (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.
- 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 delete. Yunshui 雲 水 14:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The Internet Journal of Biological Anthropology
- The Internet Journal of Biological Anthropology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was dePRODded wuth reason 'AfD would be a more suitable venue'. PROD reason was: " Predatory OA journal, not indexed in any selective database (only briefly in Scopus). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Why this need to go to AfD is beyond me, but here we are: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 22:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Close WP:NPASR Anger management issues.
Unscintillating (
talk) 01:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Huh? How can we be at "no consensus" before the discussion has even started? — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NJournals. There are thousands of these bogus and equally-non-notable "journals" out there; do we really need an article on each of them? An article on its publisher might be appropriate, if the publisher is *notable* for being a predatory open-access publisher rather than merely being included on a list, but even that has not been demonstrated. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Clear fail of WP:NJournals. -- 101.117.89.21 ( talk) 02:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. (1) NJournals is not an SNG. (2) Deleting this article altogether, without even a redirect, appears to remove the "warning" that it provides (namely that the journal is a predatory OA journal). Some of our readers and editors might be completely unaware of Beall's list. James500 ( talk) 04:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- NJournals is indeed not an SNG and was designed to make it easier for academic journals to be judged as notable. So if something misses NJournals, it's basically a certainty that it misses GNG, too. (Note that both the PROD and this nom include a reference to GNG). -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable journal lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not in the business of retaining non-notable articles to "warn" readers and editors about predatory journals. Philg88 ♦ talk 06:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I just found and removed four Wikipedia article references based on this journal and three external links to the journal itself. None were wikilinked to our article here. So obviously having an article as a warning that the journal is predatory and unreliable isn't working, even if that were a valid reason to keep (which I don't think it is). — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- In order to comment on that, I think I would have to know whether the rate at which citations are being added for predatory journals without WP articles is higher than the rate for those with WP articles, and then determine whether any such difference was statistically significant. I don't think I am in a position to do that. I think that might be a major undertaking. James500 ( talk) 15:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC) (It has been a long time since I last studied statistics, and I apologise in advance if I am inadvertantly talking nonsense.) James500 ( talk) 16:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. This journal not notable according to
WP:NJournals, and the Beale reference refers to publishers, not this journal specifically. Also, this needs to be deleted because it serves to
publicizepromote a journal produced by a predatory OA publisher WP:NOTPROMOTION. Please see What Wikipedia is not for further insight. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:18, 19 August 2014 (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.