Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berkeley Electronic Press

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. John254 00:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Berkeley Electronic Press

Berkeley Electronic Press (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Queried speedy delete for spam Anthony Appleyard 12:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony, for restoring the page so that I can defend it. It was previously nominated for deletion on the basis of 'blatant advertising'. But it is not advertising. It is a valid page for the following reasons.

  • I am not associated with BEP, and I have no conflict of interest regarding BEP.
  • BEP is publishes a variety of economics journals (and also journals in other fields, but I don't Itknow as much about that). Many economics journals are already listed on Wikipedia, both in List of scholarly journals in economics and on their own pages. The BEP journals deserve to be listed just as much as those other journals.
  • Alternatively, instead of creating a page on BEP itself, I could have created pages on some of its individual journals, such as The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, etc., etc., etc. But I think it would be more useful to list those journals on the BEP page, rather than on their own pages. That's because what is especially notable about those journals is their method of peer review, which they all share and which differs from that of most other economics journals.
  • Perhaps my description of the journals' method of peer review sounded like an advertisement, because in fact BEP has been very positively received by economists for successfully speeding up the publishing process without losing quality. But I was simply trying to state factually the reasons for changing the peer review process, and how their new method works. If someone thinks these facts could be stated in a more neutral way, they are welcome to edit my text.
  • If there are doubts about the notability of these journals, it seems to me the numbers I cited in the article speak for themselves. I would also argue that the editors and authors featured in BEP come from the top ranks of academic economists today, although I don't know how to prove that to an average Wikipedian who is unfamiliar with academic economics.

--Rinconsoleao 12:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep as burden of proof has not been met for deletion. I see no particular reason to delete this stub; hopefully it will develop. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Information: Berkeley Electronic Press was speedy delete tagged as spam at 11:54, 13 September 2007 by User:Gillyweed. Anthony Appleyard 13:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Actually a fairly important publisher by now. Should be expanded to at least show the journals, and then pages can be gradually made for the more notable ones as they become established There are quite a number of references and reviews to this and other non-conventional forms of publishing on the various professional lists and other usable sources. I'll help with it. DGG (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per DGG. Greenshed 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, significant academic online publisher. There are reliable sources in Google News Archive to write a properly attributed article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lots of Ghits for adding content, and lots of Google Books hits, as well. Article does need sources, though. Corvus cornix 21:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can't speak to the economics periodicals, but the biomedical journals are covered by reputable indexing services eg Medline, EMBASE, which amounts to significant independent coverage for an academic journal, and by extension the publisher. Article should be expanded to list the journals, per DGG. Espresso Addict 00:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability seems to have already been established. Could use expansion but does not stand as an advertisement. Dimadick 06:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the notability of this publisher has been sufficiently established. Burntsauce 22:11, 26 September 2007 (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.