Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Political Anthropology

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 redirect to Agnes Horvath. Content can be merged from the article history. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Political Anthropology[edit]

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

Article recreated without many changes after having been deleted following a PROD, so this should be regarded as a de-PRODded article and therefore we are now at AFD. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database (nor, apparently, in any other database either). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerebellum (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is young, articles in the journal seem to be cited fairly regularly. Is this a good indicator of notability? Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles on Google Scholar have indeed decent citation rates. I think that means that there is a good chance that this may become notable in the future, but not yet now. --Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article provides useful information and links about academic journal and It can be considered as a Wikipedia page. It should be not deleted 95.83.253.15 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Uncertain I am not sure that this is a primary research journal in the usual sense, in which case the criterion of indexing may not be appropriate. This does seem to have published notable authors, and its principal editor, Horvath, is clearly notable. However, the other two editors are less so. The site is currently down, so I cannot check further. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

further comment Rereading the article, the content is so promotional it would take rewriting. I think the best course at the moment is redirect to Agnes Horvath -- the article on her already mentions the journal. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge a few basic facts to Agnes Horvath I was unable to find indexing sources to meet WP:NJournals criteria or independent reliable sources for WP:GNG. It doesn't seem to pass any notability criteria for WP:MAGAZINE either. Lack of results might just be my ignorance of how indexing is done in this interdisciplinary form of anthropology. Nonetheless, the existence of and some uncontroversial facts about the journal (e.g., established 2008, who publishes it, OCLC number) are verifiable. Per WP:PRESERVE, it would be best to preserve verifiable information. I agree with DGG that Agnes Horvath is the best target for such a merge. --Mark viking (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2013 (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.