Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:46, 28 September 2012

Interface: a journal for and about social movements

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

Interface: a journal for and about social movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(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)

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

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

• 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
• Keep. Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

This editor has made publications in this journal and has a conflict of interest. Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Notability (academic journals) would be a guideline, but it's not. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages?) 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)

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)

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

• 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 Misplaced Pages....  Volunteer Marek  17:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages (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)

• 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)

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)

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)

The prize is mentioned at , 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)

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: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/American_Journal_of_Cancer_Research. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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." 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. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates