Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Political Science Review


 * 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 Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Political Science Review

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources (tagged for sources since 5 years). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per well expressed nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not pass WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable by standards of WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Also fails WP:OR.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - is one of only two journals in the world dealing with this topic. It is not indexed because it is Open Access — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mi9cal (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Being one of two is not something that meets any of the criteria mentioned in WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, please base your arguments on policy/guideliens or they are bound to be ignored. And being OA doesn't mean that a journal cannot get indexed in Scopus or the (Social) Science Citation Index, many OA journals are (such as PLOS ONE, or the BioMed Central journals). --Randykitty (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * SNOW Delete as there's nothing at least for at least solid independent notability and WP:GNG. SwisterTwister   talk  04:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.