Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophical Psychology (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 keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 22:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical Psychology (journal)[edit]

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

It was tagged with WP:N 2 years ago and the issue hasn't been resolved yet. TYelliot (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on reliance of proposed guildeline Wikipedia:Notability_(periodicals):
- Satisfies criteria #9, this journal has been in continuous publication since 1998. Further, the number of issue published each year has increased, rather than decreased, which suggests growing circulation, which implies growing notability.
- Under "Other considerations"
  - Meets minimum "Threshold standard" as it has an ISSN (0951-5089), and is published by UC San Diego Dept of Philosophy and is cataloged by the US Library of Congress.
  - Under "academic considerations," while the journal is not published by and in-house academic press, it is published by a third-party press (Routledge, which is a subsidiary of Taylor and Francis group) which publishes academic journals http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/alphalist.asp
  - Further, while this is not a criteria listed in the proposed guideline, the Editorial Board of the journal is rock solid. This is no walled garden of people with advanced degrees purchased from each other's diploma mills vouching for each other's credentials.

Mtiffany71 (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to ask that anyone interested in the proposal concerning notability for periodicals, please contribute: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(periodicals). Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Mtiffany71 above. Keristrasza (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ditto. Peridon (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the proposed notability for periodicals looks good, that appears to heading towards a consensus, and this periodical appears to meet the proposed guideline. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Mtiffany71 above. Jaymay (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2010 (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.