Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pastoral Review

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. I think this qualifies as an example of The Heymann Standard, but regardless there is a clear consensus to keep the article. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Pastoral Review[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)

Notability questioned since April 2012. Source searches for the current name (Google, Books, WorldCat), its previous name (Google, Books, WorldCat) and its first name (Google, Books, WorldCat) turn up nothing in the way of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and thus it appears to fail the general notability guideline. SITH (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done some expansion on the article. The periodical in question is actually a Roman Catholic academic journal, and has been cited in a couple of books. IMO this one is tricky because (let's face it) most of its content is of no interest to 99% of society and won't get much press, like most of what we see on List of theology journals. Markvs88 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Congress was the only thing I could find about it too. Not sure if that helps with notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has citations for three books which detail specific articles from this journal. They appear to be 3rd party. Also, the podcast is translated into multiple other languages and the paper is edited/produced out of several tertiary institutions of higher-learning. Deleting this would be like deleting science organizations/publications that are rather niche in interest and therefore don't get much coverage in the press. Lastly, articles about media sources are great on Wikipedia if you are putting in a citation from the media source. It allows the user to learn more about the media source right away. Wikipedia has lots of articles about media personalities and periodicals which might not otherwise be notable, but are useful in the nuts-and-bolts aspect of helping the users understand the sources. If you delete this, someone would might come across a citation to the Pastoral Review and have no idea if the source is Catholic vs. say Episcopalian or Unitarian. But with this article on Wikipedia it makes source evaluation easier.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to User:Markvs88 for WP:HEYMANN sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good work finding sources, but there should be more available as an established ecclesiastical journal. scope_creep^Talk 03:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I’ve struck my earlier !vote after the work done by User:Markvs88 to find and include additional sources. Mccapra (talk) 05:22, 9 March 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.