Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Disability Studies

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. (For clarity, this result refers only to the Journal of Disability Studies. The Open Journal of Psychiatry & Allied Sciences, mentioned here, is listed at a separate discussion.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Disability Studies

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

Completely unsourced The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Publisher (Integrated Science Publishing) is on the list of bogus journal publishers. This journal appears to be non-existent as no articles are available. Article says the journal started publication in 2015. ISSN was issued in 2015 by National Science Library of India [1]. Ignoring the likely po9ssibility that this is a scam journal, it is in any case at best a future journal, not a current one. LaMona (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LaMona. Evidence of existence is tenuous at best, evidence of notability is nonexistent. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Take a look at his talk page User talk:Gstfconf . What do you think?The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly think that I'm not surprised. These faux journals generally come in groups - sometimes very large groups - coming from the same publisher. The user is undoubtedly a COI. All that we can do is catch them as they are added to WP and delete them -- I don't see any way to prevent them. I'm also curious about the ISSN process. I didn't see anything on the page about payment, but I assume that there is some payment for them. The Indian ISSN agency is issuing ISSNs for these journals, and it's hard to believe that they don't know that these journals may never result in anything when a publisher asks for dozens of them at a time. Then again, among these opportunistic journals there may be some legitimate ones, ones that actually provide an outlet for scholars who can't compete with first world researchers. It's a huge dilemma. In any case, I think we should consider longevity for journals -- that they have to have published for n years OR have had some extraordinary, verifiable, short history. That would eliminate most of these bogus startups.LaMona (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Special:Contributions/Withkamlesh -- who has added the journal title to list pages, which will then need a cleanup. I don't, however, know that we have grounds for asking for a block, other than that these folks are causing us a lot of cleanup work. LaMona (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:NOTHERE is probably a valid reason to block. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable: not indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Failing WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect that many of the journals listed at List of Disability Studies journals are also non-notable recent creations by the same editor. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2015 (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.