Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Notes of the AAS

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 merge to American Astronomical Society#Publications. The arguments in favour of removing the article are well taken and supported by guidelines, the only question is whether to delete, redirect or merge. Since there is apparently salvageable material and nobody has made an explicit argument for deletion or redirect over merge, merge it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Research Notes of the AAS[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)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". Article dePRODded with reason "indexed in ADS". However, ADS is not a selective database in the sense of NJournals, so PROD reason stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, how is NASA ADS not a selective database? It indexes journals based on a manual selection, including only reliable content of interest to professional astronomers, and filters out crank material (e.g. ADS removed the Journal of Cosmology from their listings). It's no more or less selective than Scopus, so appears to meet NJournals C1b. Modest Genius ^talk 13:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not selective in the sense that it strives to be inclusive of anything that is of interest to astronomy, as opposed to, say, MEDLINE. That they removed crank/fringe stuff is really the lowest level of selectiveness and only databases like Google Scholar don't do that. --Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The rationale for deletion is not supported by applicable policy. 107.77.203.73 (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited the applicable policy. Care to explain how this nom is "not supported by applicable policy"? --Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Cited only in arXiv. The other citation in the American Astronomical Society is a sponsored link. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of peer review and quick turnaround are interesting features in an academic periodical that could plausibly make this notable, if covered in some depth in independent reliable publications. However, I can't find that coverage. Otherwise, this is WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Astronomical Society#Publications, and explain what it is in a sentence there. We can serve the reading public/scientific community by explaining what it is, even though the available documentation doesn't support a stand-alone article. XOR'easter (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / merge, as per XOR'easter. It's not an unlikely search term, there's a little to say about it, but requirements for a separate article are not met. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Astronomical Society Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:55, 18 October 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.