Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Computational Cognition

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 of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Journal of Computational Cognition

Unverifiable, non-notable, spam, original research, and/or vanity. This is part of a series of articles linked ultimately to Tao Yang created in an attempt to promote his "computational verb theory" and related concepts.

Regarding lack of verifiability and original research: I challenge anyone out there to find verifiable, independent, peer-reviewed sources that seriously discuss "computational verb theory". By "independent" I mean sources that are neither (a) Wikipedia mirrors; (b) web sites published by Mr. Yang; (c) books self-published by Mr. Yang; (d) journals edited by Mr. Yang; nor anything else related directly or indirectly to Mr. Yang and/or colleagues. Keep in mind that the references cited in these articles do not meet these criteria; for example, Mr. Yang is the editor (and apparently also the publisher) of the International Journal of Computational Cognition.

Regarding vanity and lack of notability: Even if the topic of "computational verb theory" is found to be verifiable, I'll also claim that it is not sufficiently notable to warrant several articles. The present state of affairs inflates the significance of Mr. Yang's theories beyond their apparent merit.

Related nominations:

This list may be incomplete. Please expand as appropriate.

  • Nominate and endorse deletion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I haven't checked up on the "computational verb theory" yet (that one does sound fishy to me), but the journal seems a serious scholarly outlet alright. Many of its articles seem to be invited articles, hence probably not peer-reviewed, but they come from bona fide researchers in bona fide academic disciplines. Lukas 18:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you not bothered a bit by the fact that the journal's editor-in-chief is also its publisher, or that most issues consist of a mixture of invited papers and articles by its editor and his friends? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The journal is kept by the NationalLibrary of Medicine [1]. Its editorial policies may be questionable (for all I know) but the content seems very typical for its field. Dlyons493 Talk 21:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    And we have no idea how it got there. For all we know, Mr. Yang could have donated a free subscription to the NLM. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Yang's article. I say merge because it looks like the journal hasn't moved out from under Yang's shadow as it looks to be dedicated to his ideas and run by him. In these sort of circumstances, it is more interesting in context with Yang than by itself. --maru (talk) Contribs 23:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Yang's Scientific Research Institute, reasoning provided under that article nomination. Durova 01:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep. Delete. This all seems very fishy. I tagged all related pages as a hoax until someone can produce solid evidence that it is not. —Ruud 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    "Hoax"? That doesn't seem likely, for a hoax it's just too elaborate. The journal exists and is verifiable enough, and it's filled with lots and lots and lots of scholarly work. The only thing we don't know for certain is its quality. But it's not the kind of material somebody could just invent out of thin air to have a laugh at us, is it? Lukas 21:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    It's definitely not a hoax: you can actually go to the website of the journal and download the articles published in it. However, it's not really a scientific journal, more of a scam: the editor-in-chief, the founder, the publisher, and the author who publishes the most papers in this journal are all the same person. There is no indication that published articles have undergone any form of peer review. (So for purposes of Wikipedia, it's not a reliable source.) Its main function is as an outlet for Mr. Yang's theories. I'll assert that nothing notable has been published in this journal, which makes the journal itself non-notable. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Scam would indeed be a better description. But we don't have a template for that and do for hoax. —Ruud 01:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Incognito 05:41, 18 January 2006 (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.