Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rerum Causae

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 of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 13:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rerum Causae[edit]

Delete: Non-notable college journal with almost no Google hits. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of non-notable? Ronald Dworkin, an extremely notable philosopher was involved and the journal gives a representation of what the LSE philosophy department is about, a department with past names like Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos and current ones such as Nancy Cartwright and John Worrall. The reason for no google hits is because the first edition is still at the printers. The journal will be distributed around the world and also published online. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlcullinane (talk • contribs) .

- Comment: For starters, I don't see where journals that haven't been released yet could be notable. If it's an article about something that doesn't exist yet, it kinda falls under WP:NOR (maybe). Otherwise, general notability thoughts can be found at WP:N. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, LSE publications should not be dismissed as "non-notable college journal." Part of the ongoing attack here on knowledge workers and their products. Monicasdude 14:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This isn't an "attack" of anything. It's simply saying that the journal doesn't even exist yet so how could it possibly be notable? Sounds like something that definitely could be notable in the future - apparently even in the near future. But it's not now. Esp. since no one has ever written anything about it as evidenced by the total lack of Google representation. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball, also no verifiable sources cited. If it becomes notable and verifiable outside a club at the LSE, we can write an article on it then. FCYTravis 22:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Eivind 02:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, if this comes up in a year to so when the publication has been around, I will almost certainly vote keep. Contact me then. JoshuaZ 03:44, 9 March 2006 (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.