Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Correspondences (journal) (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:52, 28 March 2024

Correspondences (journal)

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not a G4, however with only one independent source and the concerns from the prior AfD, I'm still not sure it's notable. Star Mississippi 12:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 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]

Comment: in-passing mentions don't satisfy GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The journal seems to have been consistently publishing for over ten years (see https://correspondencesjournal.com/), with roughly two issues per year. When I google "esotericism journal" it's a top hit. Whirlywyrd (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) — Whirlywyrd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]

Revision as of 17:06, 27 March 2024 edit Randykitty (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 121,127 edits →‎Correspondences (journal): fixes ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:52, 28 March 2024 edit undo Sleddog116 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers 1,942 edits Comment on AFD discussion Tag: 2017 wikitext editor Next edit →
Line 27:		Line 27:

	::*'''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 [[WP:RS\|reliable sources]] that discuss the journal ''in depth''. --[[User:Randykitty\|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty\|talk]]) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)		::*'''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 [[WP:RS\|reliable sources]] that discuss the journal ''in depth''. --[[User:Randykitty\|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty\|talk]]) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

			* '''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. [[User:Sleddog116\|Sleddog116]] ([[User talk:Sleddog116\|talk]]) 02:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)