No article found for “Ichiro Nomura?action=edit&redlink=1”.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Sentience (journal)

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗
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. – Joe (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Animal Sentience (journal)

Animal Sentience (journal) (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)

A new open access journal first published in 2015 . Covered by only one independent source which might an NPR expert blogger . Psychology Today piece interviews the editor-in-chief and is therefore not an independent source and coverage of this subject is passing mention. Notability is not inherited. Other sources appear to be primary such as the journal website and Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association - the publishing platform for this journal .

Very low article citation rate on Google Scholar . Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Not enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails GNG, WP:SPIP, WP:N. Not listed in any selective databases or indexing services - fails NJOURNALS. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia article created and somewhat edited by the editor-in-chief of this journal (see edit history and COI tag). --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- an apparently predatory journal on a fringe topic. Does not meet the relevant notabililty guideline and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
How can it be a predatory journal if it doesn't charge fees? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC).
Will there be an answer? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC).
Xxanthippe, many users !vote on numerous AfDs and do not watchlist or closely follow them. If you want an answer from someone, it's generally best to WP:PING them. Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Answer to K.e.coffman: A "Predatory Journal" is one that charges authors for publishing (or users for access) but does not provide peer review. Animal Sentience (journal) provides peer review and does not charge authors for publishing (or users for access). (I've written an awful lot about "Fools Gold Open Access journals". It would sure be ironic if I were editing one...) --User:Harnad (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Other sources:[1][2][3][4][5]Anthrozoology: Embracing Co-Existence in the Anthropocene

    HSVMA is not the publisher

    290 is actually high for the second year of a journal. Calculated as citations per target article, the same way Web of Science calculates it for Behavioral and Brain Sciences, this would yield a journal impact factor of 290/17 = 17 (however they are mostly within-journal citations, because of the open peer commentary feature, so not really comparable with other journals).

    True, just as I created the entry for Behavioral and Brain Sciences in 2005. I edit WP non-anonymously, just as I peer review and edit journals non-anonymously. (I think people should be answerable with their names and reputations for what they publish. I know this opinion is not shared at WP, but it's a point of view...) If there is a conflict of interest or a biassed point of view, I think that should be in the open too. (I did large parts of the entries for Open Access too. If I am promoting something, it is openness.) I think that whether I am biassing or distorting or promoting should be judged on the basis of the content, not by my identity. I think my WP entries -- perhaps with the exception of my entries on the decline of democracy under the Orban regime in Hungary -- are all very low key and minimal. --User:Harnad (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC) updated --User:Harnad (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Not selling anything? You are selling your reputation, you are promoting your position in the academic community. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
duffbeerforme: I can only repeat that I edit WP non-anonymously because I think people should be answerable with their names and reputations for what they post. (I know this opinion is not shared at WP, but it's a point of view...) But I think that whether I am biassing or distorting or promoting should be judged on the basis of the content of the entry itself, as it is with anonymous editors, not on the basis of my identity, because I choose to reveal it: Is Animal Sentience (journal) not notable enough for a WP entry? Vote delete. Is the entry inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate? Vote delete. But I don't think an academic journal entry should be deleted as self-promoting merely because the editor of the journal posted it. --User:Harnad (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Stevan Harnad. Even if there's not enough coverage for a standalone, coverage, this NPR piece alone would justify a mention on the founder/editor-in-chief's page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge per Patar knight. There is insufficient independent material for a stand-alone article. Softlavender (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment (by nominator). This is a tough nut to crack. The sources presented in this AfD do demonstrate there is some paragraph size independent coverage of articles in this journal. The coverage seems to indicate that this journal carries some authority on animal sentience and its articles are part of the animal sentience debate. However, I am turned off by Mr. Hanard's promotionalism of this journal and his self-promotion (for which one indication is using his biography article title as his discussion signature before recently changing to four tides like the rest of us). This taints the view that this topic might be worthy of a stand alone article.
He has also tried to include mention of the other journal for which he was editor in chief (and that journal's founder) in the first line of this article , - which was WP:OR or WP:Synthesis. He may have inside knowledge there is a connection between this journal and the other one, but no RS seems to support this. In any case, this topic may be just barely crossing the threshold for notability based on some coverage in reliable sources.
I predict in time, this topic will easily be seen as a notable journal. However, promotionalism is not required. If there are other arguments for "delete" or "merge", I am interested in reading them. Otherwise, I don't have a problem with changing my ivote to keep. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per the thoughtful reassessment by the nominator. The delete !vote by k.e.Coffman leads off with an outright falsehood ("predatory journal") and duffbeerforme mentions nothing but the promotion angle (which I agree leaves a bad taste in the mouth, but by itself doesn't automatically make a page deletable). — Gpc62 (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
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.