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.
Not a G4, however with only one independent source and the concerns from the prior AfD, I'm still not sure it's notable.
StarMississippi 12:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Hardly any improvement since the previous AfD: just one independent source (so misses
WP:GNG), not indexed in any selective database (so misses
WP:NJournals). The discussion on citation data is irrelevant, and looking at the listings in Asprem editorial, they are frankly just pathetic. Note that there is another copy of this article at
User:Schenkstroop/sandbox3. --
Randykitty (
talk) 16:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The journal has significant coverage in four reliable, independent sources and thus passes
WP:GNG.
Schenkstroop (
talk) 21:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Well, this is a University post about the journal, they don't seem to be associated with the journal
[1], I think it would be independent. I don't see the Univ. of Pennsylvania as being on the list of journal staff.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment That looks like a standard call for submissions to me, certainly written by the journal staff or the guest editor for the special issue. --
Randykitty (
talk) 14:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a piece of publicity, essentially just an ad written by the journal staff themselves. That UPenn agreed to publish it provides only the very slightest amount of support in favor of the journal's notability, maybe, but it's fundamentally inaccurate to call it a "University post about the journal".
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 15:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: Seems to be just enough with the sourcing found.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: The consensus last time was delete (I'm assuming it was deleted but then recreated?) and hardly anything seems to have changed since then.
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 15:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Having been around for some time is irrelevant (see
WP:N). And if this is a "top hit" on Google, it should be easy to find
reliable sources that discuss the journal in depth. --
Randykitty (
talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Looking at the article contents had me in the middle - seeing that this article has been listed for deletion before has made me lean towards delete, and spending quite some time searching for sources on both Google and EBSCO just looking for any hint of noteworthiness has not really done anything to move the needle in the other direction.
Sleddog116 (
talk) 02:52, 28 March 2024 (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.
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.
Not a G4, however with only one independent source and the concerns from the prior AfD, I'm still not sure it's notable.
StarMississippi 12:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Hardly any improvement since the previous AfD: just one independent source (so misses
WP:GNG), not indexed in any selective database (so misses
WP:NJournals). The discussion on citation data is irrelevant, and looking at the listings in Asprem editorial, they are frankly just pathetic. Note that there is another copy of this article at
User:Schenkstroop/sandbox3. --
Randykitty (
talk) 16:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The journal has significant coverage in four reliable, independent sources and thus passes
WP:GNG.
Schenkstroop (
talk) 21:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Well, this is a University post about the journal, they don't seem to be associated with the journal
[1], I think it would be independent. I don't see the Univ. of Pennsylvania as being on the list of journal staff.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment That looks like a standard call for submissions to me, certainly written by the journal staff or the guest editor for the special issue. --
Randykitty (
talk) 14:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a piece of publicity, essentially just an ad written by the journal staff themselves. That UPenn agreed to publish it provides only the very slightest amount of support in favor of the journal's notability, maybe, but it's fundamentally inaccurate to call it a "University post about the journal".
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 15:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: Seems to be just enough with the sourcing found.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: The consensus last time was delete (I'm assuming it was deleted but then recreated?) and hardly anything seems to have changed since then.
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 15:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Having been around for some time is irrelevant (see
WP:N). And if this is a "top hit" on Google, it should be easy to find
reliable sources that discuss the journal in depth. --
Randykitty (
talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Looking at the article contents had me in the middle - seeing that this article has been listed for deletion before has made me lean towards delete, and spending quite some time searching for sources on both Google and EBSCO just looking for any hint of noteworthiness has not really done anything to move the needle in the other direction.
Sleddog116 (
talk) 02:52, 28 March 2024 (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.