Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Festivus

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Festivus

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

This is a vanity / humor blog, not a "journal", the article is misleading. In addition, the blog is non-noteworthy. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is your reason for calling this a "vanity/humor blog" and the article "misleading"? I don't see any humor, but regular serious articles about malacology. It has an ISSN, which is rather unusual for a blog. --Randykitty (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is fundamentally flawed. The Festivus has been published since 1970, long before blogs were imagined. A Google Books search adding "shells San Diego" to the search shows that articles in this journal are frequently cited in scientific publications. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about a journal, "The Festivus: A Publication of The San Diego Shell Club" [1]. I see no evidence that the journal is either a blog, a vanity publication, nor humor. There are abundant references to this journal in serious publications [2]. One can see evidence of the latter simply by clicking on the "Scholar" link that is part of this nomination [3]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
^Notify_Online 14:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

keep Someone didn't read the article. The journal is clearly notable and it wasn't heard to find it cited and in one case commended as a model for other such journals to follow. Mangoe (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination is clearly incorrect--a blog that started publishing in 1970? What? Anyway, not my area of expertise but I'd say 43 years of publication of a peer-reviewed journal is notable enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mistaken nomination. It is worth looking at the nominator's edit history and here[4]. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2013 (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.