The result was delete. Even if we assume that WP:NJOURNALS, while being a non-binding essay, is currently our best-practice on the topic, the Keep views have still failed to establish how the article meets NJOURNALS (other than the sweeping Criterion 1.b, which failed to reach consensus), and have not adequately refuted the claims it fails even under these overly permissive criteria. Kudos to Ritchie333 for the final relist, which allowed participants another week to address the GNG and NJOURNALS concerns. This discussion is also echoed in a similar AfD - WP:Articles for deletion/European Journal for Philosophy of Religion. Owen× ☎ 00:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
It exists, but I couldn't find the sources to show it is notable. I may be missing something though from not reading Arabic. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can get this resolved. Boleyn ( talk) 20:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:
WP:NJOURNALS is not a notability guideline, and does not address nominator's implicit
WP:DEL-REASON#8 rationale. More discussion around established
policies and guidelines would be helpful in determining notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest) 18:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎ 15:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "no consensus", but was challenged, so I am relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 10:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Even if we assume that WP:NJOURNALS, while being a non-binding essay, is currently our best-practice on the topic, the Keep views have still failed to establish how the article meets NJOURNALS (other than the sweeping Criterion 1.b, which failed to reach consensus), and have not adequately refuted the claims it fails even under these overly permissive criteria. Kudos to Ritchie333 for the final relist, which allowed participants another week to address the GNG and NJOURNALS concerns. This discussion is also echoed in a similar AfD - WP:Articles for deletion/European Journal for Philosophy of Religion. Owen× ☎ 00:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
It exists, but I couldn't find the sources to show it is notable. I may be missing something though from not reading Arabic. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can get this resolved. Boleyn ( talk) 20:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:
WP:NJOURNALS is not a notability guideline, and does not address nominator's implicit
WP:DEL-REASON#8 rationale. More discussion around established
policies and guidelines would be helpful in determining notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest) 18:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎ 15:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "no consensus", but was challenged, so I am relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 10:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)