Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archaeology International

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 redirect to UCL Institute of Archaeology#Publications. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology International[edit]

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

Not indexed in any selective database (none of the databases listed are even close to being selective). No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the policy-based reason for deletion, as opposed to merge or redirect? The journal may or may not be notable (I haven't looked into this), but the index listings show basic facts about the journal to be verifiable--the listed indices may not be selective, but most are independent. At the very least, redirecting to UCL Institute of Archaeology#Publications would seem a no-brainer. I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I just don't understand why the alternatives to PROD and deletion were not tried first. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a redirect after deletion. There are many non-notable journals with verifiable basic facts, but not everything that is verifiable needs an article. Given that the article creator removed the PROD (which would have given time to find sources or explore alternatives), I reckoned that making a redirect would be reverted pretty fast. Hence the AfD... However, if there is to be a redirect, I think it should go to the publisher, Ubiquity Press, as articles in the journal are not exclusively from members of the UCL Institute of Archaeology. --Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- My reason for voting thus is mainly the reputation of the UCL Institute of Archaeology. On-line journals are not as prestigious as print ones, but this is emanating from a top-level source in its subject. If not kept it should be merged or redirected to [[UCL Institute of Archaeology#Publications. Plain deletion should be out of the question. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In many fields, nobody cares much any more whether a journal has a print version or not (see the success of the PLOS journals, for example). Basing your !vote on "the reputation of the UCL Institute of Archaeology" conflicts with WP:NOTINHERITED. The journal is already listed in the article on the institute and I don't see much (except perhaps the year of establishment) that could be merged there. The list of indexing services that is present in the current article should most certainly not be merged: these non-selective (and hence, in this context, trivial) databases are not even listed in articles on journals that really are notable all by themselves, so there's even less reason to list them for non-notable ones. --Randykitty (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to to UCL Institute of Archaeology#Publications. Looking at the publication, it seems to be a kind of in-house newsletter/journal for the institute. The articles do seem to be peer reviewed, but by comparison Public Archaeology is indexed by Scopus. Given our standards for academic journals, I think Public Archaeology should have its own article while this one belongs with the institute. I think it deserves a good paragraph or two, as a publication to find out what's going on at the institute – projects, research, personnel, etc. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 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.