Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science and Consciousness Review (2nd nomination)

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 redirect‎ to Bernard Baars. ✗plicit 00:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Consciousness Review

AfDs for this article:

[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)

This very old website appears to fail

WP:GNG. Despite the name and the association of several prominent scientists with it, it is not an academic journal. I could not find any secondary coverage of the website from a web search or Google Scholar. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Psychology, and Internet. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A 2018 book [1] describes it as apparently defunct. That is about when the Wayback Machine stopped capturing it; their most recent image is from that August [2], and every post there is already years old. So far, I'm not finding evidence that an article is warranted here, though I also imagine that in this case a redirect wouldn't hurt, if there were a suitable target. (Perhaps
talk) 16:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sourcing found, defunct website. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few mentions in Gscholar, confirming existence but nothing for GNG. [3] Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bernard Baars, which already mentions the Review on his article as the founding editor. Let'srun (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no in-depth coverage, not even brief coverage. Not notable

FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2023 (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.