Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theoria and Praxis

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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theoria and Praxis[edit]

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

Relatively new, non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Too soon. Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy,

Thanks for your criticism. I don't know why Wiki's editors are in rush all the time. Yesterday 15 minutes right after I posted the skeleton of the article, I see a half page note with a heading "speedy deletion" because I did not have enough sources. I added few sources then I get another note titled "article for deletion" because I did not include any indexes. I add index, now it is about "Relatively new, non-notable journal". Yes, it is not a 100 year old journal, but it is going to publish its third issue in two months. And please stop calling it "non-notable", because if your background is social sciences and you go check the editorial board of the journal, you will see that its= is indeed very notable. Btw. the journal is on Google scholar, you just need type the complete title. And for your information, the journal is currently being reviewed for indexing by JSTOR and Philosopher's Index. And one final note: please give me some time to work on it. I was going to develop the article slowly. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exminre

Comment Exminre, there must be a misunderstanding here. The current version of this article was not proposed for speedy deletion, that CSD notice on your talk page is months old (and it wasn't for lack of sources, either, but for a copyvio). There is a bot warning considering this article, that's all. Having looked at the article, it was pretty easy to see that it does not meet any of our inclusion criteria. Therefore I placed a "PROD" tag. No hurry there, either, because such a tag gives the community (including yourself, of course) seven (7) days time to find adequate sources before the article gets deleted. As you immediately removed the PROD (now who is in a hurry... :-), I opened this AFD discussion, which also will last for seven (7) days. If no sources can be found in a week, it's pretty safe to assume that there aren't any. I'm pretty confident that this will be the case, but will happily withdraw this nom if you can find any evidence of notability that I may have missed. --Randykitty (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Randykitty, I have included 6-7 more sources. I will continue working on it. Please let me know if I need to provide more info. Thank you. Exmin

@Exminre:, references 3-8 are about the inclusion of this journal in databases like Google Scholar and DOAJ (and the other ones listed in the article), but none of those databases is both selective and major (GS obviously is "major", but like Google tries to index the whole web, GS tries to index all scholarly literature, for example; I'd never heard of "JURN", but it's website says it's "powered by Google", so that's not selective either). References 1 and 2 are to the journal's homepage. In short, you still need to come up with references that either discuss the journal in-depth (usually very difficult for academic journals) or show that it is indexed in major selective databases. As it stands, there is absolutely no evidence of notability, I fear. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Randykitty, Hi Randy. Thanks again. I would like to remind you that T&P is a new journal and as you may know major indexes take close to a year to review and get back to one. currently, T&P is being reviewed by JSTOR, PhilPapers, The Philosopher's Index, Thompson and Reuters, and Sociological Abstracts. Once they include T&P into their data I will update the wiki page. There is not much else I can do at this point other than waiting. Best. Exmin.

Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON then... --Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, my general rule for philosophy journals notability is that it should indexed by Philosopher's Index and PhilPapers. So I would vote delete for now (copy to user space and wait for the review to be done). This is supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal though, so maybe some other indices are relevant: I don't know. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 22 March 2014 (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.