Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhiloSOPHIA

Add links
Source: 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) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

PhiloSOPHIA

PhiloSOPHIA (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)

PROD'ed once before; this publication does not appear to have received significant coverage in

WP:GNG. —swpbT 19:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 19:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 19:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Swpb prodded this last year and has now nominated it for deletion 40 minutes after I recreated it. We host articles on dozens of academic philosophy journals that no one writes about, but which are nevertheless well-known within the niche they serve. PhiloSOPHIA covers feminism and continental philosophy, and is one of a very small number of peer-reviewed feminist journals devoted to philosophy. SarahSV (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but is it notable? Oh, did I misunderstand you? We have encyclopedia articles, but we are not a webhost.Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is
    talk) 20:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:GNG a guideline. Hmlarson (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, but the nature of an academic journal means that finding a verifiable citation isn't enough; papers are cited all the time. Having press coverage of an article in the journal isn't useful either. Expecting the general public to be aware of it is an absurd threshold.
talk) 20:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I note for the record that
talk) 20:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:JOURNALCRIT is a specific section outlining criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not quite sure what exactly makes people think this is notable here. It doesn't seem to be cited very often, and here is only one source discussing the journal itself (Hypathia). I'll note that it's indexed in the
b} 15:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Headbomb, please stop removing the advisory board. This is a small feminist-philosophy journal, founded in 2011, and the advisory board is likely to be significantly more involved than in a more established journal. The page you keep citing is just an essay. SarahSV (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: this is really out of order. Removed three times, including since I asked it to stop. [1][2][3] SarahSV (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The advisory/editorial board is inconsequential and plays very little role in the day-to-day operations of a journal, and for this reason we do not include it in articles unless the composition of the advisory is somehow notable/discussed in independent
b} 01:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Then I'll ask you to stop yourself, and use the talk page to make a case for why we need to deviate from normal practices. The argument that the journal is small and on feminist philosophy won't do much to convince people that this is a special snowflake journal that needs to be treated differently than others.
b} 01:57, 1 June 2017 (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/PhiloSOPHIA&oldid=1138228594"