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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative Technology Transfer and Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Ephemeral journal, published for only a short time. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by DGG with stated reason "I am unwilling to delete a project MUSE journal without a discussion at AfD." PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG and NJournals. No current significant coverage in reliable sources or selective databases. Also, I can't see the historical value of this now defunct journal. I read some of the abstracts, and this journal seems to do little more than record obscure historical facts and circumstances. It appears the impact of this journal on U.S. or global societies is little more than a historian (or historians) could accomplish with good to excellent researching skills.

For example, this abstract [1], and this abstract [2] are not impressive in themselves and the content that each summarizes does not seem impressive. The leadership behind publishing this journal appears to have been technology transfer officers - who have come from, or who have connections to - the commercial sector. This seems apparent in the aforementioned second abstract and the following linked article [3] - these seem to have promotional overtones.

I have to wonder if the intent behind publishing this journal is to toot the horns of technology transfer officers and somehow bestow prestige upon this profession. It appears to me, there is no unique contribution here, because I think other notable sociology or history journals probably achieve much better coverage from authentic scholarly perspectives. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A journal that died after six years and doesn't list any major indexing services seems like a clear fail of WP:NJournals despite its good publisher. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per David Eppstein journals was died. No longer in publication. Jessie1979 (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2016 (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.