Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Geek Studies (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 speedy delete. WP:G4 - TNT ^💖 22:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Geek Studies[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)

Non-notable publication, fails WP:N, WP:GNG. Google finds no instances of substantial coverage in an independent reliable source. Largoplazo (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this sounds too much like a jokey journal to have a place in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If it were notable, being jokey would be immaterial. The issue is its apparent lack of notability. Largoplazo (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Could someone check if this is substantially the same as the article which was deleted in 2015? If it is, then speedy deletion criterion G4 would apply. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's identical to the last comma. I've tagged it for G4 (I prefer not to delete it myself, as I was the nom on the previous AfD). I wonder where the current article creator found this, three years after it was deleted... --Randykitty (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G4 is inapplicable here. G4 "applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes ... pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." [italics mine] In case like this, where the deletion rationales were of the nature of "not notable" and WP:TOOSOON, which are judgments on the nature of the subject, at the time, and not on the content, then it's entirely reasonable to consider whether, four years after the previous deletion, those rationales no longer apply, whether the subject has possibly come to meet the notability guidelines since then. Imagine someone submitting Justin Bieber for G4 deletion on the grounds that his mother had created an article about him two years earlier (subsequently deleted at Afd on the grounds of non-notability) the day after he first sang at a school assembly. Largoplazo (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's NOT "sufficiently identical". It's frigin IDENTICAL. Your comparison with Justin Bieber is ridiculous. --Randykitty (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an exact recreation of an article already deleted for reasons that still apply. XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an identical recreation. Largoplazo might I ask what exactly you assessed this based on? G4 is very clear and I think your interpretation above is very poor. Consensus hasn't changed and the content hasn't either. Praxidicae (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2019 (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.