Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalyst (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 redirect to Jacobin (magazine). (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst (journal)[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Too soon." Article dePRODded with reason "Journal edited by notable editors, stable-mate of notable title, some external sourcing, worth keeping". However, external sourcing is not independent (magazine of publisher) and that the editors are notable or that the foundation publishes another notable journal is irrelevant. Journal has publishesd just one issue recently, too new to have become notable yet. In short, PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New publication that fails WP:NJOURNALS. The references present are not WP:IS attesting to notability either. Maybe it'll become notable but right now it is way WP:TOOSOON. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jacobin (magazine). WP:TOOSOON Jacobin launched this more scholarly journal last month, May 2017. The argument for redirect is that Wikipedia can be a useful place to check out a journal you've never heard of. A newborn publication can be notable, of course, but only if it is hailed by multiple, reliable in-depth sources. Let's wish this one well and tuck it into bed with Jacobin until it has had a chance to grow up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jacobin (magazine); definitely WP:TOOSOON, possibly WP:NOTINHERIT as well. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2017 (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.