Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis and Critique

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis and Critique

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

Nominating per PROD criteria submitted by Randykitty which does not seem resolved; "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG" 331dot (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per original PROD reason given above. --Randykitty (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needed references and some adjustments. As it is not yet indexed it can not be considered an academic journal, but there are several independent sources referencing it as a journal. Most notably this link. The article still needs improvement, but it should NOT be deleted. --Anna Comnena (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask if you are the one who started the page under the username Crisis and Critique and if you are associated with this publication. Regarding the page, the changes made do not seem to address the notability criteria concerns, and the sources added do little more than establish that this publication exists. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in any way related or associated with this journal. And, also I have not started this page. But as leftist myself I have read articles on this journal and find it relevant for the article to exist on WP. I am also dedicated to make improvements so it will meet all the necessary criteria. ——Anna Comnena (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This method of deletion is not speedy so you are welcome to continue to make changes but please review the notability criteria linked to above if you have not already. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care whether an author has a connection with a subject or not, as our notability criteria are quite objective and don't leave much room for gaming the system. That this journal "can not be considered an academic journal", because "it is not yet indexed" is a weird notion. This is obviously an academic journal. As for the "not yet" part, many journals get started and fail after a while, never becoming notable. As this point, it is impossible to say what will happen with Crisis and Critique. Perhaps it will develop into one of the most influential journals in its field ever. But WP is not a crystal ball. If ever this journal becomes notable, the article can be recreated, but at this point it is way too early to know what the future will bring. --Randykitty (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with randykitty. If it becomes popular, the page can be recreated.C E (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the journal has around 3000 readers (journal data). I do not think there is a threshold for a journal to be classified as popular. But on the other hand, Wikipedia does not count the number of readers a journal should have for it to be on Wikipedia. WP is an encyclopedia, and every relevant information would be good to be in it. The publishing of Crisis and Critique journal is relevant information. —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My blog has about 1 million readers (blog data). I think that C E meant "notable" when they wrote "popular". Number of readers/subscribers is indeed not a criterion for notability, although one would expect that a huge readership (for an academic journal) like 3000 would have generated some coverage in reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a good point. I did some more digging, these are some other links where authors used C&C on their list of publications for their universities and other institutions Johnston, Livingston, Boer, Ruda, Ruda Bard Link, Ruda again, a blog. —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - @Anna Comnena: Unfortunately journal notability is a tricky thing since their importance tends to be based on the extent to which their contents are cited/referenced rather than how often people write about the journal. That's part of why we have the indexing possibility for establishing notability. But that's not to say indexing is the only way. The general notability guideline can apply to any article. That requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The first link you shared above is from a school where the editor works (and says as much), so we can't consider that one. Nor where people claim credit for publications there because these aren't neutral/objective sources -- they have a professional interest in mentioning it. Sometimes a large collection of high profile citations of a journal in top tier publications has been enough to establish notability here, but if those aren't there, if the indexing requirement isn't met, and if there aren't enough sources about the subject, it's going to be too soon for an article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL, mainly because it's too soon for them to be notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG and as per Randykitty.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2015 (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.