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. MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning[edit]

International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (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)

This article describes a journal published by a non-notable publisher (article recently deleted, new information since last AfD), which is described in a newly published paper as a vanity press with questionable practices.

The founder and current editor is David Parsons from his office in New Zealand. The article was started by user:Dparsonsnz. In other words, it's an advert.

Most of the content is primary sourced: X is indexed in Y, source, Y's entry on X. Some of the indexes look like resume padding to me.

There are no reliable independent sources offering substantive coverage of the subject itself. We can establish that it exists, but that's about it. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Indexed in Scopus, so meets notability criteria of WP:NJournals and in my opinion, criterion #1 of WP:JOURNALCRIT. It is also indexed in the ACM digital library[1], which I consider somewhat selective. COI is a general concern, but the article was started 6 years ago and Dparsonsnz' last edit was 4 years ago. Promotion is a general concern, but in its present form the article is not particularly promotional. The article linked by the nom mentions IGI as a rogue book publisher, but says nothing about their journals that I can see. A notable journal and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The automated indexing argument used by proponents is a rehashing of 'it's in google so it's notable.' Stuartyeates (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Indexed in Scopus, which is fundamentally different from indexing in Google. Google (and GScholar) attempt to index everything. Indexes like Scopus only include a journal after it has been vetted by a committee of experts who judge the journal to be among the more important ones in its field. The only reason I !vote "weak keep" and not outright "keep" is that in my opinion Scopus is becoming more permissive than, for example, the Science Citation Index Expanded. --Randykitty (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scopus doesn't talk about selection, but talks about "22,000 titles from over 5,000 publishers" which doesn't sound selective to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the Scopus selection criteria. While I agree with Randykitty that Scopus is less selective that it was in the past, it does have a transparent set of selection criteria that render it a selective index and distinguish it from a comprehensive automated indexing system like Google web search. --Mark viking (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering there are at least about 100,000 journals around, 20,000 is still pretty selective... --Randykitty (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The journal has it's notability and meets meets wiki indexing sources. Jessie1979 (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font.  20:30, 13 November 2016 (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.