Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlo Ricci

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Ricci

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Rd232 ^talk 12:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He is the founding editor of The Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning. However, this journal doesn't seem to be a "major well-established journal" as required by WP:PROF#8. The fact that several of his peer-reviewed publications are in the journal he himself edits may play against his notability when considering WP:PROF#1. I haven't looked at citations though. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The journal is indeed not a "major well-established" one: it was founded only 2 years ago and does not seem to be listed in any of the major indexing services, e.g. it's not in the ISI indexed journals. Also, and very unusual, it seems to have a "closed" list of about a dozen authors who've written almost all the articles, including Ricci himself. The article's claim that this is "an internationally recognized peer-reviewed journal" is clearly false – fails WP:PROF #8. There is another claim on WP:PROF #1, as the article shows lots of publications, many of them in the above journal. (In fact, much of the article is simply this person's CV.) None of these publications seems to be listed in WoS, giving Ricci an h-index of 0, which I found a little odd. Upon further checking, part of the issue seems to be that some of the journals are really only teacher's trade publications, while others do not exist, at least any longer. For example, Journal of Pre-service Education and Checkmark cannot be found. All the other Youtube videos and such do not lend further notability in this case 7ndash; fails WP:PROF #1. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The evidence above indicates that none of the items in WP:PROF is satisfied. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. JUAL is part of the Directory of open access journals www.doaj.org/ and has an issn and is listed as a peer reviewed journal in searches for journals by title in any university catalogue. As well, it is the only academic journal dedicated to unschooling and alternative schooling and has received international attention. It is important to not use scientific journal requirements for researchers in the social sciences field.

His most recent book, Turning Points, is a collection of stories about education from those who have dared to do things in different ways. The contributors to this book have a high profile, namely: Riane Eisler, John Taylor Gatto, Yaacov Hecht, Matt Hern, Helen Hughes, Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs, Herbert Kohl, Mary Leue, Deborah Meier, Chris Mercogliano, Susan Ohanian, Wendy Priesnitz, Zoe Weil as well, the forward was written by Alfie Kohn.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephentedesco (talk • contribs) — Stephentedesco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. So, you're saying that it's important that we not apply the standard requirements in this particular case? Are you kidding? Be assured that the field of social sciences does indeed have its own set of scholarly journals that precisely follow "journal requirements for researchers". The fact of the matter is this: this journal, JUAL, may become a mainstream one in the future, but it certainly is not one at the moment. All indicators support this assertion: journal not listed in major indexing services, journal limited to extremely small author-base of a few people who've written all the articles in the journal's (short) history, GS shows that none of any of the articles in the journal's history have ever been cited, etc. Actually, this last point is not quite true. There does seem to be one article that was cited once: John Vitale, one of the dozen or so authors on the "closed" list cited one of his own papers in JUAL in a later conference paper. It seems that the journal itself only has an h-index of about 1. Moreover, ISSN numbers and such are red herrings. For example, there's no barrier to securing an ISSN number – even "vanity-published" materials have these. As for the "Turning Points" book, I can't tell that this has even been published yet, although this trade group website (here, as well) says that a limited number of pre-publication copies are available. This again speaks more to WP:CRYSTAL than WP:N. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete As for the journal, Worldcat shows it in only 6 libraries. Ulrich's lists it, but gives no information about indexing. I DOAJ does have some minimal standards, but they're only that it has some academic content, peer-review or other quality control, and actually published more or less regularly. I do not think the journal notable. As for the other publications, I see only 5 articles in standard journals, and the book being relied on , Turning Points is not even in WorldCat at all. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 26 September 2009 (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.