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. This is a bit complicated. At first glance, "keep" votes outnumber "delete" votes 8 to 4 (counting the IPs obvious intent to say "keep"), but the delete votes do present solid rationales (on average stronger than the keep votes), some which were addressed and others that were not. This forces me to close a qualified "No consensus". I would recommend shoring up the article's sourcing, as another AFD in 6 months is a real possibility. Dennis - 2¢ 14:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Energy-Safety and Energy-Economy (journal)

[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources, only one minor (and also non-notable) award. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the places where Randykitty and I disagree. The West-European/US oriented selective databases are irrelevant for Russian titles. It's included in its own nation citation index, and that is sufficient. There's no other practical way for us to avoid cultural bias in this field. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I strongly agreed with DGG on this note. Inclusion in its country citation index is enough. Wikicology (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, essentially per rationale of Wikicology, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editor. Not sure if adding my comment here is correct, sorry about that. I am one of the editors of this journal and I wonder if you could give us a chance and keep the Energy-Safety and Energy-Economy article. I do not agree that the journal is “Not indexed in any selective databases.” Global Impact Factor, SHERPA, Higher Attestation Commission (the Russian leading periodicals database) are selective databases. Published papers are included in the largest bibliographical catalog worldcat.org. Members of the journal’s editorial board are doing all their best to improve the publication and are making it an open access bilingual journal. The managing editor became the Editor of the Month http://gaudeamusacademia.com/forum/topics/editor-of-the-month-april-2014-svetlana-zernes?xg_source=activity. Thank you for your understanding.73.43.243.35 (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. James500 (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, clearly notable. Zambelo; talk 11:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Hi Zambelo, I'm glad to see that your recent topic ban at ANI has motivated you to go outside of your usual haunts. We can use more editors working on academic journals! --Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Randykitty! Glad to see you back hard at work ensuring other people's misguided efforts to collaborate on a Worldwide Encyclopedia Project are managed to within your scrupulous guidelines - I'm just (pleasantly) surprised you haven't brought more conscientious editors along to force the issue this time - we can use productive editors who can stick to due process without pushing a POV. Zambelo; talk 17:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zambelo is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely-blocked editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I strongly disagree with all of the above "keep" !votes, none of which, in my opinion, is even slightly based in policy. The "West-European/US oriented selective databases" certainly do not exclude journals in other languages and contain journals publishing in Japanese, Chinese, and, indeed, also Russian. The own national citation index (Russian Science Citation Index) is not selective at all. Accepting indexing of journals in the RSCI would actually create a cultural bias: English-language journals need to be included in a selective database, but Russian-language journals only need to be included in the RSCI. The journal under discussion here has no impact whatsoever. Searching Google Scholar (not using the above link containing the dab) under its English title gives a grand total of 3 cites. Searching for its Russian title lists a few hundred articles published in this journal (showing, by the way, that GS indexed journals in Russian), none of which has been cited, not even in Russian journals. In short, we have no sources discussing this journal (and for those claiming there is a cultural bias at work here, I would like to remind everybody here that sources in Russian are perfectly acceptable), we have no inclusion in databases that are even remotely selective, and we have no evidence that this journal has any significant impact. I fail to see how anybody can argue that this journal is notable. --Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It meets notability. Karlhard ^{(talk to me)} 00:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Karlhard, not even any of the above editors have dared argue that this meets no less than GNG. Could you perhaps be so kind to explain which sources discussing this journal in-depth comply with GNG? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, what do you think of the idea of AfD nominators confining themselves to their nomination statement and responding to questions asked? Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a bad idea. An AfD is supposed to be a discussion, which could hardly be done if the nom would be barred from further participation. I have seen many an AfD where the discussion led to the nom withdrawing the nomination or to other participants changing their opinions. Not dicussing would be detrimental to the process and eventually to the project. --Randykitty (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this section in WP:NJournals; "Independent, third-party sources must exist for every topic that receives its own article on Wikipedia, without exception (see Wikipedia:Verifiability: 'If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.')." Origamite^ⓣⓒ 12:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that policy, which is entirely correct, is about verifiability, not notability, and requires only reliable sourcing, not reliable sourcing sufficiently substantial to establish notability under the GNG. We have never relied on the GNG for academic journals. Verifiability is met by Ulrich's. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if the claims in the article cannot be verified through reliable sources (not just one lady's "Editor of the month" bio) it doesn't meet notability. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 22:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note: It would have been easy to close this keep, but the potential bias issues with inclusion and/or exclusion based on RSCI are signficant, and I would prefer to see more discussion on that point, as the answer to that question may have some signficant value as precedent. My apologies to participants irritated by the relist, but I really think this is a question worth getting right. Thanks for understanding. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can explain why they believe the Russian Science Citation Index is a selective database.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From editor. Global Impact Factor, SHERPA, Higher Attestation Commission List (the Russian leading periodicals database) are selective databases.184.188.97.130 (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Glonal Impact Factor is on Jeffrey Beall's list of fake impact factors. It is not selective. Nor are any of the others, which strive to cover all Russian journals. --Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From editor. Any Russian scientist or scientific journal editor knows that Higher Attestation Commission's List has plenty of strict requirements and is selective.66.56.43.231 (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but as far as I can see from the VAK website, the strict criteria consist of being peer-reviewed, having a website and editorial board, having an address, etc. There's nothing that indicates any stricter than that. Could you perhaps provide a link that shows there is more selectivity? --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From editor. The link with VAK's rules is [1]. Editors of Russian journals dream of including their publication in the VAK's list but meeting criteria doesn't mean that they will be included. VAK has its own selection policy based on commission experts' opinions. The selection process is not clear enough but it is a selection process. The total number of Russian scientific publications is 10028 while the VAK's list contains only 2269.66.56.43.231 (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had already seen that document, but unfortunately my Russian is not good enough to read it and it is not in a form acceptable by Google Translate. However, over 2000 journals from Russia alone does not strike me as very restrictive, comparing that with WoS or even (the much less selective) Scopus, which both cover the whole world. --Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DGG has it spot on, I concur with his opinion. --Rotten regard 21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: We need to come to a conclusion here.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DrDevilFX (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is my breakdown. DGG, Wikicology, Cirt, James500 and Rotten Regard think that the RSCI is enough. Karlhard asserts that it meets the GNG. 73.43.243.35, 184.188.97.130, and 66.56.43.231 say that the other journals are selective, which Randykitty directly disagrees with. Zambelo was trolling and wikistalking Randykitty. Randykitty and AioftheStorm say that the RSCI is not selective, and that no reliable sources mention this journal. I agree with Randykitty, and say that without sources, notability can't be established. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 01:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets Notability and the journal is reliable, as well as generating ~23,900,000 results on Google, (using query "Energy-Safety and Energy-Economy") — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDgeek1729 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It really is not enough to just say "meets Notability", you will also need to explain how it meets that. What sources do you consider sufficiently in-depth here? Strangely, I get just 35 Ghits (and only 13.9 million without the ""), but, in any case, numbers of Ghits are really no measure of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single claim made in the article on this non-notable journal is backed by a reliable source and it's evident that the reason for that is the absence of reliable sources that we could use. It's too soon for Energy-Safety and Energy-Economy to have an article on the English Wikipedia. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The discussion about what kind of database inclusion is required is irrelevant and misleading. Per WP:GNG, what we require for inclusion is substantial coverage in reliable sources, because otherwise we have nothing to base our article on, and such coverage is not attested here. Sandstein 10:16, 2 November 2014 (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.