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. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics and Pragmatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable journal. Three sources are listed, two of them not independent. The third one shows that this jourl is not listed in any selective database. WP:BEFORE does not unearth additional independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Articles in this journal are cited with remarkable frequency for this subfield, so this easily passes Criterion 2 of WP:NJOURNALS. Botterweg14 (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Article is now updated with additional independent sources that clearly establish notability, including a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy citation that explicitly states that it's a top journal in its subfield, easily satisfying Criterion 1 of WP:NJOURNALS.

Now updated further with more independent references, including Barbara Partee's contribution to The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics, which names the journal as part of a notable development in the field, thus satisfying Criterion 3 as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botterweg14 (talk • contribs)

• Comment: Janssen/zimmerman ef: not independent (Zimmerman is an editorial board member); Philips reference: self-published blog; Haspelmath: in-passing mention on a blog; Partee ref: impossible to evaluate without a clearer link; Potts: self-published blog and also not independent (Potts is an editorial board member). So, no, "speedy keep" is absolutely not justified. Rhetorical question: if this journal is so crucial, how come it isn't indexed in any selective databases? --Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: I have now updated the article again so that it cites an earlier edition of the SEP article, for which Theo Janssen was the sole author. Since Janssen is not among the 403 members of the editorial board, this is an independent source. Since this settles the issue of notability, we can discuss your other concerns about the other sources on the article's talk page if that is what you would like to do. Botterweg14 (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to its publisher, Linguistic Society of America. Not notable, per RK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion of citation counts as a criterion for inclusion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

)

• Keep Weak keep. A 2023 impact factor of 1.1 according to Journal Citation Reports (thus meeting WP:NJOURNALS); highlighted as a significant journal in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as noted by Botterweg14. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No, it doesn't meet NJournals. Clarivate now also reports an IF for journals included in ESCI, but ESCI does not convey notability as it is known to be less selective (even including some predatory journals). --Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think J. Milburn's point was about the magnitude of the impact factor, not about inclusion in ESCI. But once again, this is a moot point given the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy citation. Botterweg14 (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; point taken about NJournals. My mistake. Changing to a weak keep. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain? I feel like I'm missing something here. Botterweg14 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the relevant text of WP:NJOURNALS is: 'For the purpose of C1, having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports usually qualifies (except for journals indexed in the non-selective Emerging Sources Citation Index)'. Maybe that's a good rule, maybe it isn't, but I was wrong when I said that this journal meets the criteria (of that not-quite-a-guideline!) on the grounds of having an impact factor. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you’re saying, but again I think the SEP and Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics sources (among others) establish C1 clearly enough that this is a moot point. Hence my surprise at your switch to a merely weak keep. Botterweg14 (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Considered to be important by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, meets criteria 1 of WP:NJOURNALS Mrfoogles (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it's parent publisher's page is already long. Wouldn't be a good situation in which to merge. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: From the quote given, it's quite obvious that the Stanford Encyclopedia cite is just an in passing listing, without any in-depth discussion of the journal. No way is this a meet of NJournals criteria 1. --Randykitty (talk) 07:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Just to add related information (I'm not an involved Wikipedia person, so I won't try to provide judgements on keeping or not), SemPrag is likely not behind in progress of notability in comparison to the other three main journals in formal semantics. E.g.: WorldCat for SemPrag is on pace with Natural Language Semantics's WorldCat library inclusions. I'd also like to reiterate a previous comment above: In her discussion of the history of formal semantics, care is taken by Barbara Partee (well-known to be one of the most influential semanticists alive today) to situate the journal within her sub-discussion of the then-recent rise of semantics and pragmatics being considered a unified research area (p. 28). She does not try to discuss the journal and its status in full, but the intent seems clear. Anmkato (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What C1 says is "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." It does not require extended discussion in the aforementioned reliable sources. If it did, then inclusion in a selective indexing service would not on its own suffice to establish notability. In this case, what the SEP says is "The most important journals in the field are Linguistics and Philosophy, the Journal of Semantics, Natural Language Semantics, and Semantics and Pragmatics". So even putting aside the supplementary Martin Haspelmath and Colin Phillips references, this is top notch sourcing for the claim that this is not merely an influential journal in its subject area, but in fact one of the most influential. That clearly satisfies C1.

Of course, notable topics can sometimes be impossible to cover due to lack of appropriate sources, but that's a separate issue and I would be surprised if anyone felt it applied here. Botterweg14 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the difference between an in-passing mention in an encyclopedia article, no matter how laudatory, and a listing in a selective database is that the former is the opinion of one or two people, whereas the latter is the result of an in-depth examination by a committee of specialists. As an aside, while not ideal, I could live with a merge as suggested by Headbomb. --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If that's what makes a difference, then your objection isn't with the absence of an extended discussion in the cited source, but rather that you don't regard the Stanford Encyclopedia as reliable. If that is the discussion you want to have, we can switch to having that discussion. Botterweg14 (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please note that the article does not qualify for a speedy keep; feel free to revise your !vote if you still believe it should be kept. Additional views about the proposed merger would also be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Botterweg14, I didn't say that this encyclopedia is not a reliable source. I said that an in-passing mention does not meet NJournals (and even less WP:GNG). --Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: seems to pass a straightforward reading of NJournals #1, which doesn't mention the depth of discussion required "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." There isn't much coverage though so a merge might be appropriate, but a separate merge discussion can be opened if this is kept anyway. Shapeyness (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2024 (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.