The result was delete. Even if I found the point on passing WP:NJOURNAL was made out, which I don't, that is an essay and passing it does not show notability I am afraid. Stifle ( talk) 11:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Fails WP:NJOURNAL. This WP:FRINGE journal has not generated the necessary notice for a standalone article. jps ( talk) 15:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines.That is why we have criteria like the above, which this journal satisfies. Tim Smith ( talk) 02:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." That seems to be the case here. -- tronvillain ( talk) 17:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject.In the absence of reliable, independent secondary sourcing beyond a couple database entries, we don't really have material to write an article with, and notability is not inherited from a few notable people having published there over the years. Yes, we have articles on publishers with shady reputations, pseudo-academic organizations that are outright frauds, and worthless journals. But in those cases, there's something to say, and here, there ... isn't, really. We shouldn't let databases do our thinking for us. (It's also worth reflecting that Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is an essay, not a guideline; i.e., it hasn't gone through the process of codifying a solid consensus behind it. So, while it has good advice, it's not as field-tested as the guideline for academic people is. Discussions about deleting articles on journals come up less often, and consequently, the precedents are less numerous, and the gray areas are grayer.) I'd be open to discussing a redirect to the publisher, but slice it any way I try, I can't make a case for a stand-alone article. XOR'easter ( talk) 06:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Even if I found the point on passing WP:NJOURNAL was made out, which I don't, that is an essay and passing it does not show notability I am afraid. Stifle ( talk) 11:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Fails WP:NJOURNAL. This WP:FRINGE journal has not generated the necessary notice for a standalone article. jps ( talk) 15:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines.That is why we have criteria like the above, which this journal satisfies. Tim Smith ( talk) 02:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." That seems to be the case here. -- tronvillain ( talk) 17:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject.In the absence of reliable, independent secondary sourcing beyond a couple database entries, we don't really have material to write an article with, and notability is not inherited from a few notable people having published there over the years. Yes, we have articles on publishers with shady reputations, pseudo-academic organizations that are outright frauds, and worthless journals. But in those cases, there's something to say, and here, there ... isn't, really. We shouldn't let databases do our thinking for us. (It's also worth reflecting that Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is an essay, not a guideline; i.e., it hasn't gone through the process of codifying a solid consensus behind it. So, while it has good advice, it's not as field-tested as the guideline for academic people is. Discussions about deleting articles on journals come up less often, and consequently, the precedents are less numerous, and the gray areas are grayer.) I'd be open to discussing a redirect to the publisher, but slice it any way I try, I can't make a case for a stand-alone article. XOR'easter ( talk) 06:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)