Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitalism: A Journal of History and Economics

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. After a pair of relists, I just really don't see a consensus here. Go Phightins! 20:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalism: A Journal of History and Economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation way too soon." Article dePRODded (by creator of another journal article that I took to AfD) with reason "Announcement by IAS demonstrates notability". A brief press release is far from sufficient to meet GNG, so PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a serious peer-reviewed academic journal published by a university press with an excellent editorial board. The reason that it is not indexed by resources like SCOPUS is that they never index journals in their first few years of operation. (I know this from my editorial experience with several journals.) A supermarket novel passes with two reviews in trade review rags but an academic journal has to jump through hoops? Zero^talk 07:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not the strongest argument. Yes, it's irritating those supermarket novels. Compare it to an 18-year old athlete who's considered notable after even the most modest accomplishments whereas academics who spent their whole lives researching and publishing don't get any coverage and therefore don't meet our inclusion standards. But that's the way society is (that athlete will also likely earn multiple times the income of even a top-level academic). WP cannot do otherwise than reflect society. So if their are sources on a supermarket novel, it gets an article and a journal (for which we have an essay, NJournals, to make it easier to pass the bar then GNG) does not get an article. --Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should have an article because a peer-reviewed academic journal that has already published 21 papers is worthy of an article. If reflecting society was all that Wikipedia was supposed to do, we should close up shop. Zero^talk 11:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Never thought I'd see an admin argue that we should keep an article because it is "worthy"... Do you really think that instead of looking for independent reliable sources we should leave it to WP editors to decide what should get an article ("worthy") and what not ("unworthy")? --Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree with Zero,think this needs to be kept and re-addressed in a year or so time to see if it is being indexed. Articles are already being reference - https://academic.oup.com/journals/search-results?page=1&q=%22Capitalism%3A%20A%20Journal%20of%20History%20and%20Economics%22&fl_SiteID=5567&SearchSourceType=1&allJournals=1. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with Zero and Davidstewartharvey. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 09:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Note: blocked sock. --Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nobody says that this is not a serious journal, but at this point we don't even know whether this is going to survive. And Scopus et al. only include a journal after it has shown too have some impact, their equivalent of our "notability". As this has only just started, there are no sources indicating any notability. This needs to be deleted and once (if ever) notability is clear it can be re-created, we don't do that the other way around. --Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TOOSOON, basically. Can be revisited once notability is actually established. The composition of the editorial board, or the notability of its published is irrelevant per WP:NOTINHERITED Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All indications are that it's a legitimate enterprise, but without indexing in a selective database or in-depth coverage by secondary sources (say, if it had an innovative funding scheme or peer-review system that attracted attention), we don't have grounds for an article yet. 21 papers is actually a very small number of papers as far as academic publications go, and we'd need many more than the handful of existing citations to them to argue that the journal is influential. XOR'easter (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:TOOSOON for WP:NJOURNALS and no evidence of WP:GNG-level in-depth coverage in independent sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Zero. This journal is indeed notable and certainly worthy of an article. The sourcing demonstrates its notability and legitimacy. I don't think we should have to wait years until a new journal from an important academic press is indexed by SCOPUS and others. Thriley (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Could you please tell us which 2 sources provide independent in-depth coverage as required by GNG? In the absence of those, how does your !vote differ from WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm amazed at how much support Zero0000's arguments are getting. Classic don't do this in AfD arguments. Suggest those who want to keep find more and better sources. Of the current sources:

1. ias.edu .. press release with a press contact (upper right side). Not independent in-depth coverage.

2. MUSE - database entry. Is every journal on MUSE notable?

3. Masthead - not indepedent coverage

Currently there are zero sources that show notability per WP:GNG. -- GreenC 22:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Scopus, the least selective of the "selective databases" mentioned in NJournals, currently lists over 41 THOUSAND journals. If it's not in Scopus, you can pretty safely assume that it is not notable yet, except for the extremely rare case that a journal meets GNG before it gets indexed. Project MUSE is not a database but an access platform ("aggregator") and as such not independent: it sells subscriptions. --Randykitty (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per the above policy based !votes of RandyKitty, Xoreaster, and David Eppstein. Doesn't meet notability criteria currently. Just because it exists, does not make it notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I've been watching this for a bit, and RandyKitty's most recent comment pushed me over the edge. If the journal is not indexed by even the most inclusive of sources, and cannot otherwise meet GNG (per GreenC's analysis), then it has not established notability yet. Perhaps one day, but it seems not yet. MarginalCost (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In the section above, RandyKitty claims "If it's not in Scopus, you can pretty safely assume that it is not notable yet", and others have taken that comment seriously. However, Scopus does not operate that way. It isn't in Scopus because it is new, and it is very rare (or never) that a journal is listed in its first few years. One of the criteria for consideration is "a publication history of at least two years" and even then it has to be proposed for inclusion and considered by a committee that can take another year. So not being in Scopus is exactly what should be expected, and is not an indication of lack of notability. Zero^talk 04:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What you write about inclusion in Scopus is not wrong, but your conclusion is. Scopus has not (yet?) decided whether this will be included. Apart from having a well-functioning crystal ball (mine just broke), we cannot predict whether it will eventually be included. It is published by a respected, but small university press and even large, well-established publishers produce the occasional dud that folds after a few years, without leaving much trace. --Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, it takes time for sources to properly assess a new publication. It is just the nature of the beast that we can't get ahead of our sources. As WP:N saysWikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. If that means that we don't immediately have an article on every journal that will end up one day demonstrating notability as soon as it starts, then that's just part of the process.

My question is what criteria you think it does satisfy from WP:NJOURNAL? I think that GreenC has shown pretty clearly that none of the current sources satisfy GNG, and the Penn Arts article added since then is just a statement from the editor and obviously not independent. MarginalCost (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's well-sourced and reputably produced. It passes WP:GNG.--User:Namiba 19:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: which two sources cover the journal in-depth so that GNG is met? WP:ITSNOTABLE is just so much hand waving. --Randykitty (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of GNG or NJOURNALS pass. Can be recreated later if independent RS coverage is published in future. (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 11 March 2021 (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.