Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Physical Education, Fitness and Sports

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Physical Education, Fitness and Sports[edit]

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

Fails WP:JOURNALCRIT. scope_creep (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I do not see how this can meet the guidelines for notability for academic journals, nor the WP policy on notability, nor the general notability guidelines.
- The journal website offers a description that is vague and asserts that: "Our journal has indexed by Cabell's Directory, EBSCO Publishing Database & Partnership with International Nobel Peace Prize Recommendation Forum(INPPRF)." Neither Cabell nor EBSCO are selective databases indicative of being recognised within the academic community in line with the requirements of criterion 1. The website of the International Nobel Peace Prize Recommendation Forum declares that the "INPPRF is the only International movement and came into forced to support the Nobel Foundation and it's Committees worldwide as well as all World Peace Movements/International Sports Organizations" and that it was "[I]nspired by the mission of the Nobel Foundation "Nobel Peace Prize", the International Nobel Peace Prize Recommendation Forum was created in 2004 with the practical support by the International Non-Olympic Committee-INOC." This site, located at nobelpeaceforum.org, appears to be a deceptive / fake version of nobelpeaceprizeforum.org that does state "the Forum operates under the auspices of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and is the only such program or academic affiliation outside of Norway."
- The journal is published by Nature Academic Publishing that looks to me to be hoping to pass itself off as the highly notable Nature Publishing Group, just as with the INPPRF and the International Non-Olympic Committee. These similar names are common with predatory journals and predatory publishing. I don't know if this journal is one of these, though the promise that "[publishing an article in IJPEFS will not be required Article Processing Charges"] suggests otherwise. In any, there is good reason for suspicion that something odd / deceptive is going on here.
- I looked at this randomly-selected paper from the journal (Sept 2015, vol. 4, no. 3). This paper should not have passed peer review at a journal of any real quality, not only because of the problematic English, but also becomes of the material that would never be included in a genuine research paper (like tables of ANOVA analyses rather than simple statements of the results) and discussion which mentions prior literature but is nowhere near a genuine analysis of the significance of results in the context of broader understanding. The conclusions and recommendations are also extremely unimpressive.
- A Google Scholar search shows a single paper from this journal with 8 citations, and no other paper I see has more than 4 citations. A Google Books search also finds little, so I think that the evidence for notability in line with criterion 2 is lacking.
- Looking at criterion 3, the journal's first issue was in March 2012, so historical importance seems unlikely.
- Overall: I don't know if this publication is a very minor journal with low standards or something in the predatory / fake genre, but it is doubtful as a reliable source, there is little to no evidence of it being influential in its subject area, and there are few verifiable citations at all, let alone by other reliable sources. It's short history argues against having established historical significance. Thus, it does not meet any of the criteria at WP:JOURNALCRIT, there is little to no evidence of notability, and so it is also ineligible for inclusion under WP:GNG. EdChem (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NJOURNALS. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A very similarly titled journal was listed on the standalone-journals subset of Beall's list before that went offline, under a different url, but I'm not sure it's actually the same journal or just parallel evolution. Regardless, we have no evidence of passing WP:NJournals nor WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS. LA2029 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:39, 12 May 2017 (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.