Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:31, 19 November 2005

Democracy & Nature

Vanity page, not obviously notable. Google Scholar shows very few instances of citations from other journals. Editorial board of magazine is trying to maintain control over content, as shown by talk page. SarekOfVulcan 03:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This seems to be an attempt to end an edit war and disagreement through an afd vote. Not the way to do it. --Woohookitty 07:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see how you would come to that conclusion, but I don't feel it's the case. I don't have a dog in this fight: I'm just trying to insure the integrity of Misplaced Pages. This article came to my attention while I was following RfPP after the Freemasonry edit war, and I was quickly convinced that if the editorial board (all of whom post from IPs, not named accounts) was going to insist on having the article exactly the way they wanted, then it qualified as Vanity. You can do the same external research I did: a Google search on the title shows that most of the top references appear to be just references to the journal's existance, or reprints of articles. A Google Scholar search shows that very few of the articles are cited more than once or twice.--SarekOfVulcan 07:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment First, it is the Editorial Board itself which formally requested the deletion of the page when it became clear that Misplaced Pages could not protect our page from vandalism. But to characterise the page of the journal as a ‘vanity page, not obviously notable’ is only revealing –to say the least--of the philistinism of the author of this comment. D&N was an antisystemic Left journal and citations from other journals are bound to be few and sparse, as it is clear that the mainstream journals (as well as those of the reformist Left) which dominate the field do not bother to deal with anticapitalist journals, particularly today. Had he checked citations made with respect to other serious antisystemic theoretical journals like Anarchist Studies, for example, he would have found even fewer of them! Second, serious research on the significance of a journal obviously cannot be carried out through a Google search, which refers exclusively to electronic citations. Had your ‘researcher’ checked with the authentic Alternative Press Index (only in print form!) he would have seen dozens of citations of abstract reprints from Democracy & Nature. Third, it is an obvious lie that the members of the Editorial Board insisted “on having the article exactly the way they wanted”. In fact, even though it was apparent that we faced a systematic attack by a single disgruntled ex-member of the journal we took on board several of the suggested changes, but clearly we could not accept a blatant distortion of historical facts that he insisted on imposing upon us for his own personal reasons, as a reading of the exchanges in http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Democracy_%26_Nature makes abundantly clear. (Member of the Editiorial Board) 11:16, 18 November 2005

• Keep it!

The Journal contents still very interesting articles of many prolific writers of Left. This is a clear attempt to end the discussion when he/they (Sharek of Vulcan)have no 'arguments' left other then his hatred! R.H.

• Keep. Journals of this type are inherently notable. No one "owns" a Misplaced Pages article. If there are issues over the NPOV status of the article, then it should go to Misplaced Pages's arbitration folks or simply protected. 23skidoo 13:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I dispute that journals of any type are inherently notable - many of them have pitifully small circulation, no academic credibility and they are often short-lived; many of them are vehicles for vanity, either of the editor or the contributors. Whether that is the case with this one I have yet to determine. It certainly looks as if this one may well be notable. Also, while the nomination might be in good faith there's plenty of evidence of bad faith in the edit history, so it might be hard to get to the objective truth. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / (W) AfD? 13:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep it!!!!!

Keep the D&N page as it is. The themes and topics are insightful; they offer an alternate perspective not to be found in any other journal. The anti-systemic nature of D&N is refreshing, and provides a valuable research tool. Viji November 18, 2005

• Delete. A Google Scholar search shows 159 citations, of which 133 are within the journal itself. In the absence of any information on subscriber base, and given that the magazine is defunct, and given the long-running dispute re inclusion or non inclusion of text re the history of the journal, I'd say that the article is substantially unverifiable, and that evidence of notability is absent. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / (W) AfD? 14:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment. For your information, among subscribers to D&N have been the following libraries: University of Oregon; Bath University,UK; Chaire De Sociologie University of Paris; Universita di Padova Italy; University of Waterloo-Ontario; Dept of Linguistics, Cambridhe, MA; Univ of Chicago Press;MIT Press Journals; Library of Congress, Washington DC; Dept of Philosophy, Univ. of Texas; Philosophy Dept, Swinburne Univ. Australia --full list from Taylor & Francis/Carfax. Also, the journal is not defunct but has been succeeded since 2004 by the online journal The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy (Member of the Editorial Board).14:46, 18 November 2005
    • The fact that you cite University of Bath rather than, say, Oxford or Cambridge, is interesting (Library of Congress is famously promiscuous in its buying). So, how many actual subscribers were there? Personal and institutional (two numbers) will be fine. Or do I need to walk next door and ask? As it happens I work next door to Taylor & Francis! - Just zis  Guy, you know? / (W) AfD? 15:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep it!

I believe that the page should be kept as it is at the moment (with no separate sections for two members of the IAB) because information about a journal of such a scope is of an obvious encyclopaedic value. We should not permit a "disagreement" of a whole group of people with a single person (who hardly used arguments), to influence our judgement. D&N was (and is, in its newest digital form and name) one of the last independent anti-systemic journals. We cannot base our opinion about it in google search, or even on the number of subscribers for that matter, but on the quantity and quality of the condributions and the significance of the contributors themselves!!! And since when an encyclopedia must select its entries on the basis of popularity? User:Dimitri 18:57, 18 November 2005

• • • Here is a more comprehensive list of some of the main subscribers to D&N: UNIV OF CO AT DENVER; WASHINGTON & LEE UNIVERSITY; MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY; BROCK UNIVERSITY,CANADA INDIANA UNIVERSITY; UNIV OF TEXAS AT EL PASO; UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND; UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN; SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY; IOWA STATE UNIV; UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA; LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS; UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS; STANFORD UNIVERSITY; SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY; HAMBURG LIBRARY; BERNARD HAMES LIBRARY, AUSTRALIA; UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES; UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY, KENT; UNIVERSIDADE DE COIMBRA, PORTUGAL; LOYOLA UNIVERSITY; GODDARD COLLEGE, VT; HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY;INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL HISTORY, AMSTERDAM;FORMAZIONE II BIBLIOTECA, PALERMO;WASHINGTON & LEE UNIVERSITY; BROCK UNIVERSITY; INDIANA UNIVERSITY;UNIV OF TEXAS AT EL PASO; UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN;IOWA STATE UNIV;UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS;SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY;BATH UNIVERSITY.

Sorry, Oxbridge is not in the list but the LSE library is included! I wonder however whether you have checked similar details for the other journals hosted by Misplaced Pages and we are not going to continue satisfying your curiosity(?) anymore...(Member of the Editorial Board) 16:44,18 November 2005

• Keep. Seems notable enough for mine given the list of subscribers and list of authors. Content disputes should preferably be sorted out on the talk page. Capitalistroadster 17:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Definitely a notable journal with many notable contributors and editorial board members. If members of the editorial staff really did request deletion because they couldn't control the article content, that's idiotic on their part; but it doesn't make the journal less notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, seems notable enough. I don't think the total number of subscribers is significant with journals like this; it says more that a number of respectable academic libraries use their limited funds to buy it. (By the way - since Oxbridge was brought up by somebody else - it seems that it can be found in the Radcliffe Science Library in Oxford.) --Tupsharru 19:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Whatever! Hasn't anybody else noticed that those who support Democracy & Nature's editorial board almost always write either using no username, or simply using an ad hoc username which hasn't been used anywere else in Misplaced Pages and will therefore probably be discarded soon afterwards? See especially the Talk pageof the Democracy & Nature entry. This is turning into a game of shadows, wherein those with more time to spare do their best to give the impression of massive support for their viewpoint. And Misplaced Pages has witnessed previous occurences of such behaviour. DisposableAccount 00:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)