Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hipertext.net (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 no consensus. I am reluctantly calling this NC. Nobody has spoken in favor of the article, but I'm really hesitant to delete something with only two people arguing for deletion, especially given Mark viking (talk · contribs)'s point about systematic bias. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hipertext.net

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

Online journal, not indexed in any selective dayabases. Article creator de-PRODded and added several "independent sources". None of these is actually about the journal, these are simply articles, blogs, and a dissertation, which have cited an article published in this journal. Does not pass WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Previous AfD in November 2013 was closed as "no consensus" because of a lack of participants (and hence no discussion). Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is where applying criteria in WP:NJournals becomes difficult. The About Us page shows that the journal claims to be in 12 indexes, 2 of which are English-based and known to me. Those two are not very selective, but what about the 10 Spanish indices? Are any selective? For non-Spanish speakers like me, how could we reasonably tell? Uncertainty about index quality is not enough justification for a keep, but we'd also like to avoid the systemic bias of "if a journal isn't in a selective English-based index, it isn't worthy of an article". --Mark viking (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NJournals talks about selective major databases. I don't think any of those Spanish databases, even if they hould turn out to be selective, qualifies as "major". --Randykitty (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear to meet the journal notability criteria. As Randykitty points out, the indexing requirement is for major databases. I don't have access to any solid citation indices, but there is no indication that this is a highly cited journal. Moswento ^talky 08:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:30, 1 May 2014 (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.