Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantius (journal) (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 Delete. Michig (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantius (journal)[edit]

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

Comment This is a very strange one, and I'm making this as a procedural nomination, rather than me desiring any particular outcome (at least at the moment). The article was prodded, then AFD'd in 2009. Then it got undeleted/restored, possibly for a DRV discussion, which endorsed the deletion. Then in 2010, it was unprotected by John Vandenberg with the summary 'new info has come to light', then restored with the summary 'no info has come to light'. The 'new' info seems to have been indexing in L'Année Philologique (L'Année Philologique). Is this truly sufficient to established notability? I don't know, but I think we should have a debate about it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, as an academic journal there seems to be a little bit of notability established. At the same time, here we still have a publication with almost no impact. It's not mentioned in books. It's not referenced in any kinds of news articles. It hasn't made a splash in terms of getting other journals to really cite it. I feel inclined to just get rid of the article given, at the very least, the spirit of the rules that we have. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure what happened here. The logs say that it was restored because "new info has come to light", but looking at the changes made since the last deletion, I don't see anything that would justify reverting the previous delete decision. No sign that this comes even close to meeting WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2015 (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.