Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theoria and Praxis (2nd nomination)

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. KTC (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theoria and Praxis

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

Previous AfD 10 months ago was closed as "no consensus". No improvements since then. Journal apparently still not listed in any selective databases. No independent sources. Main contents are basically a list of all issues published. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No evidence of notability, as all sources are not independent of the subject itself, and an internet search turns up nothing more. BenLinus 1214^talk 21:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The journal doesn't appear to be particularly notable and doesn't have adequate references or much relevant content, but as a principle, a journal certainly doesn't have to be included in a bunch of commercial databases on the Internet to be notable, which appears to be mainly a tradition within natural sciences and far less common among eg. humanities (particularly in non-English speaking countries, such as Germany, although this doesn't apply in this particular case). Bjerrebæk (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are selective databases in any field, including humanities and social sciences, although there are indeed more in the natural sciences and medicine. and, of course, we need to have some indication of notability beyond the journal having a homepage... --Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm a little fuzzy on a threshold for library holdings (re: WP:NJOURNALS#Notes and examples #6). There appear to be ~60 here. However, the publication is only a couple years old and didn't pop up on any of the humanities-related indexes I searched (nor sufficient sources about the subject for GNG). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:21, 10 January 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.