Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Library with the Lead Pipe

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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Library with the Lead Pipe

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Tagged for notability since 2016. Not indexed in any selective databases. The four independent references listed are just in-passing mentions. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - indexed in LISA and LISTA; cited in a variety of professional and scholarly sources (eg. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither of those databases is selective in the sense of NJournals. And a smattering of citations is to be expected for any journal. Note that for individual academics we often require 1000 or more such citations for notability, so for a complete journal the few citation to articles (not in-depth discussions of the journal itself) that you list are far from indicating notability. --Randykitty (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of selective you're looking for? The sample of citations I've linked is far from comprehensive. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Databases are considered selective under NJournals if they only include journals that are judged to be more important/authoritative, leaving out less important ones. Databases that strive to include every journal in a particular area are not selective. None of the databases maintained by EBSCO are considered selective in this sense. As for the citations, they don't show notability unless a journal has been cited hundreds and hundreds of times. (In which case they'll sooner or later will get picked up by Scopus or one of the Clarivate Analytics databases). --Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a discussion that arrived at the consensus that no EBSCO database counts in this regard? I looked quickly at the talk archives for NJournals and didn't see one. For that matter, is there any such discussion for the "hundreds and hundreds" of citations you suggest are required? I see that NJournals does specify that the threshold varies by field, and this particular field is smaller than, say, biomedicine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there have been centralized discussions about most databases, including EBSCO's. However, in AfD debates, EBSCO databases are always ignored ass being not selective enough. As for the citations, that is also a common argument during AfDs. It might be good to specify some of these things in NJournals, because especially the citations thing keeps coming back at AfD. Fact is, even the most obscure journal in the tiniest field will rack up some citations to articles that it published. So some are to be expected. In AfDs of academics, we generally require at least 1000 citations (or several first or last author articles with >100 citations) to establish notability (assuming that a person does not meet one of the other criteria). That's for a single person, I don't think we should expect less from a complete journal... --Randykitty (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think given the size of the field in question your expectations are too high. NJournals (and NPROF for that matter) both indicate that these are relative rather than absolute criteria. LISA and LISTA for example are two of the key databases for the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indexed in the leading databases in its field, independent third party citations indicate that it is widely read in the field. Gamaliel (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those databases strive to cover all that is published in their field. And if you take a moment to look at the references in the article, you'll see that one of them reports that a full 5% (that's right, five percent) of librarians read this journal at least from time to time. Whether that equals "widely read" is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Personally I find this a complete failure of both GNG and NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Gamaliel. ♟♙ (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2020 (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.