Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Law and Social Deviance

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. J04n(talk page) 18:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Law and Social Deviance

edit
Journal of Law and Social Deviance (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)

Relatively new journal that has not yet had a chance to become notable; article creation premature. Not included in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If the journal is in HeinOnline, then it is part of one of the most selective legal databases and should therefore be considered to meet Criteria 1 of WP:NJournals. HeinOnline Acquisition Editors determine whether journals suit the narrow scope required by law school and law firm subscribers. The Bluebook is easily the most established and relied-on legal citation guide. The Bluebook chose to include the journal under rule 3.1 in its most recent edition, further supporting the requirements of Criteria 1 WP:NJournals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilalmas (talk • contribs) 05:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC) — Civilalmas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep Bluebook is an extremely selective, independent source that regulates all citation of law journals and reviews, and HeinOnline is a highly selective database that only stores superior law sources. Both of these include and mention the Journal of Law and Social Deviance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.67.237 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC) — User:206.174.67.237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment HeinOnline is a provider of content. They will not include journals like the predatory PA journals springing up all over the place (which this one isn't), but apart from that they are not very selective. Similarly, the Bluebook will include a standard abbreviation for any law journal and is not very selective either. If inclusion in this database and book would meet WP:NJournals, I would not have proposed this for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Respectfully, I believe that you are undermining HeinOnline and Bluebook. Everyone involved must have a doctorate degree in the field. Do you have a J.D.? Have you published in law? If you do and have, then you know the rigorously high standard for publication in the legal field and how intensely difficult it is to be published by a law review, and be included in a database upon which other researchers rely.
Have you ever archived anything with HeinOnline? If not, then you should submit something to test whether your theory--that they are not selective--is correct. I encourage you to attempt the same with Bluebook, which only lists about 200 journals (worldwide).
Our journal has received several article submissions that cite our journal. In my work, which has been published by top-tier or second-tier journals, I cite the journal. Thus, the journal has been relied-on and proven to be trustworthy by many authors and editors. You may not have researched your claim that the journal has not been cited, so I provide a few links to examples of the journal's reliability, here:
http://www.rutgerspolicyjournal.org/sites/rutgerspolicyjournal.org/files/issues/10_1/10_1-Cusack.pdf.
http://www.jael-online.org/wp-content/uploads/Death-Revolution.pdf
http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=142456
http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/2012/05/08/australasian-dispute-resolution-journal-update-april-2012/
Many more examples of the journal being cited are available on LexisNexis, HeinOnline, and WestLaw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.67.237 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of those articles that cite this journal were written by the same person who got a $1000 grant towards the cost of the journal's publication and who wrote this Wikipedia article. Do you have no shame? Why is it that commercial spammers nearly always recognise that their behaviour here is counterproductive once it is challenged but their supposedly more intelligent academic counterparts never seem to do so? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that that same person with a penchant for citing this journal is, as I suspected, its editor. Self-citations are obviously useless as a determinant of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with analyses provided by Civilalmas (talk · contribs) and 206.174.67.237 (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to point out that the above references given by 206.174.67.237 (talk · contribs) are just citations of articles published in this journal, not in-depth discussions of the journal itself. For academics, we generally require hundreds if not thousands of such citations before they are considered notable and it is difficult to see why this should be different for a complete journal... The Bluebook contains instructions on how to cite legal publications (particularly in the United States). Inclusion of a journal abbreviation in it therefore hardly a distinction, nor is it in-depth coverage. I maintain that this journal fails both WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above links are just a few examples of the journal being cited by other journals, some of which are included in Wikipedia. For example, The New York Bar Association and The Rutgers Journal of Law and Public Policy both published articles that cite this journal. To clarify, those are not links to this journal. They are links to other reliable journals that have published citations to this journal. In the J. L. & Soc. Deviance's Wikipedia page, the journal includes a quote published by the Text and Academic Author's Association (TAA). This independent source discusses the journal. There is no definition in WP:GNG and WP:NJournals for "in depth", so this quote satisfies that requirement. You seem to have conceded to the point that HeinOnline is selective. This means that the journal meets the criteria in WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. Your idea that we should conflate academics and WP:GNG and WP:NJournals is inappropriate because the standards are wholly distinguishable and measured separately. Many of the journals with pages on Wikipedia have not been cited hundreds or thousands of times. You offer no evidence to support your insinuation that all other journals on Wikipedia have been cited hundreds or thousands of times. Because this journal is included in a selective database, HeinOnline, and because it has been addressed directly in detail by TAA, a reliable source with editorial integrity, this page meets the standards set forth in WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.67.237 (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that you should stop and think how such inability or unwillingness to understand Wikipedia's policies from someone who many readers will assume to be representing this journal will reflect on the reputation of the journal. If you can't even get to grips with that then how competent do you (and by implication the journal) appear to be at real-life law? The TAA source is just a notification that someone received a grant of $1000, with a statement of what the journal intends to achieve rather than what it has actually achieved. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Phil: First, my analysis of Wikipedia's policies are spot-on. Everything I wrote is true. Please address what I wrote directly and, at least, support your claims. Second, I can assure you that a conversation about Deletion policies is irrelevant to the authors' legal analyses and capabilities, professional reputations, or decision to publish with the journal. Nevertheless, you should pay them more respect. They have all earned it. Third, TAA is an organization established by and for academic authors. The journal has served as a text book in university courses. It is an academic text. TAA is not an arbitrary lending institution posting an informal notice online. TAA is a reliable and selective source that produces monthly content for academic authors. What you see online was a part of a mailed newsletter that contained articles about academic publishing written by experts for experts. The statement describes what the journal has already achieved. The mixed-media format has already served as an academic text at a university. This journal is physically archived in law libraries and university libraries in Canada, U.S., and Puerto Rico. These are highly selective archives. One example maybe viewed here, http://www.ccl.lib.ak.us/uhtbin/cgisirsi.exe/x/0/0/57/5?user_id=PACUAS&password=EGAN&searchdata1=journal+of+law+and+social+deviance&srchfield1=GENERAL%5ESUBJECT%5EGENERAL%5E%5Ewords+or+phrase&submit=Search. I would like to highlight that no one is debating that HeinOnline is selective. Thus, because of the journal's physical inclusion in libraries and its inclusion in HeinOnline, the journal qualifies under criteria 1 of WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.67.237 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Phil in all respects. As for HeinOnline, I commented on that above and am not going to repeat myself. As for your interpretations of WP guidelines: we're not in a courtroom here and dumping huge walls of text is a strategy that in WP "jurisprudence" frequently backfires. You don't have to convince a jury here, but an admin who's well-versed in WP procedures and knows what generally is considered, for example, "in-depth coverage". Please familiarize yourself with our procedures and guidelines and come with real arguments establishing notability, instead of all this "wikilawyering". Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have refrained from making a recommendation until now because I was hoping that those calling for keeping this article would come up with some better evidence, but that now seems unlikely as the one editor who might have done so has chosen to interpret questioning and debate as bullying. Worldcat lists 33 libraries carrying this journal, but that is for the online edition that presumably costs less than the $45 a pop that it costs to get it on CD, so it doesn't represent any great commitment from those libraries. Both HeinOnline and the Bluebook aim for comprehensiveness, so those listings are the opposite of the selective listings required by WP:NJOURNALS. No independent sources about the journal have been presented here, and the only citations to it are in articles written by the journal's editor. I'll refrain from giving my opinion about the general acceptance in academia of this type of anti-academic self-promotion in case it's construed as more "bullying". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it is surely worth knowing that the person who created this article also wanted to create one on the editor of the journal (failed AfC); it's also interesting to see the editor's now-blanked user page [1]. I think we've got a big steaming plate of WP:NOT here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not proved and POV editing suspicious. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Law_and_Social_Deviance&oldid=1080636441"