Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almagest (journal)

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. Sandstein 10:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almagest (journal)[edit]

[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)

Article tagged for notability since 2012. According to MIAR it still is not indexed in any selective databases (the only one listed being zMATH), so this fails WP:NJournals. There are two references, one a trivial listing, the other a dead link, but most likely this was a simple listing, too. Therefore this also fails WP:GNG. In the absence of any other evidence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NJOURNALS - Nanosci (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to help put the article, discussion out of its misery. Technically ineligible, but no one is contesting the deletion, so it should be eligible. Meta aside, per the lack of selective indexing as Randykitty pointed out and my own search doesn't indicate any evidence to the contrary. Star Mississippi 02:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The history and philosophy of science is a small discipline, but by no means an insignificant one, and the journal is a serious one. Looking through the list of editors there are two names that I recognize (Ana Barahona, whom I know slightly, and who is a serious scientist, and Ron Numbers, who is very well known in the field). It did occur to me that perhaps they were listed without their knowledge (it has been known!), but given that Numbers is a co-editor of the current issue that can be ruled out. Athel cb (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please see WP:INHERITED and WP:ILIKEIT. --Randykitty (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious to me why you think either of these is relevant (the second certainly isn't). Could you elaborate? Athel cb (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument for "keep" rests on the notability of some persons involved with the journal (hence NOTINHERITED] and on your personal evaluation (i.e., not based on any source) that this is a "serious" journal (hence ILIKEIT). --Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of indexing in selective databases. Fails WP:NJOURNALS and unlikley to pass WP:GNG Carver1889 (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2022 (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.