Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priscilla Papers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) sst✈ 05:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Papers[edit]

Priscilla Papers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded after a reference showing an in-passing mention was added. PROD reason still stands, hence: *Delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The numerous citations in Google Books shows that the journal easily passes WP:NJournals #2. Also, the reference referred to above is more than simply an "in-passing mention", and probably indicates that it passes #1 as well. Worldcat shows holdings in 600 libraries. StAnselm (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to WP:NJOURNAL #1, an independent reliable source needs to reach that conclusion, or the evidence needs to be overwhelming. --Bejnar (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim of notability.Zaalim (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The numerous citations in Google Books (as above) - if being heavily cited in the academic and scholarly literature is not enough to make a journal notable then what is! Do we have to have a 3rd party source which says "Priscilla Papers is a notable journal" somewhere. Nonsense! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - use the "Scholar" option from the "Find sources" element above and you get lots of such citations etc. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As others said, it's easily found in Google Book searches, and I just did a Worldcat search on it and found it held in over 600 locations near me. Easily passes WP:NJournals #2 at least. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 08:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The library holdings don't say much (apart from the fact that WorldCat is quite unreliable): the journal is open access (delayed, but still), meaning that many libraries will list it as an "Internet resource" because it doesn't cost anything. As for the GBooks searches, did you really see anything substantial (as opposed to some hits)? --Randykitty (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 11 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Priscilla_Papers&oldid=1071200859"