Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Creative Computing

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. joe decker ^talk 02:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Creative Computing

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. (As an aside: I cannot find any other issue apart from the inaugural issue published in 2013)." Article dePRODded by article creator, who explains on the talk page that some of the authors in the single issue published up till now are notable and that therefore the journal is notable, too. However, notability is not inherited and I also note that there is a long-standing consensus in the Academic Journals Wikiproject that lists of notable authors should not be included in articles and do not contribute to notability (unless the implication of a notable author with the journal has been the subject of significant independent coverage; see als WP:JWG). Taken together: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — for the reasons given on the article's talk page, IMHO. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How this can be "certainly the leading journal in the area of creative computing" with only 1 issue published since the journal was established in 2013, no independent sources, and no indexing in any selective database really is beyond me... Sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is the only journal specifically covering creative computing to my knowledge, so how can it be other the "leading"? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's hilarious! --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly "leading" in the sense that no other deals with the same exact subtopic, but then there is not a single journal that is not "leading" if you restrict the topic enough. And not all of them are notable. Tigraan (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although it could be userfied. To meet notability guidelines it needs to have more issues published/ Just one, and that a few years ago, is a worry. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Publishing in a journal ≠ thinking it is influential (especially for a first issue!), so I fail to see the Jpbowen's claim on WP:JOURNALCRIT #1. Tigraan (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears that this article does not meet the notability requirements enumerated in WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2016 (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.