Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child Life


 * 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. No consensus for deletion here. Keeping/Merging/Moving are all options that can be considered elsewhere. Davewild (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Child Life

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Journal that existed only for a short period of time. One reference given in article that confirms existence, but nothing more, so impossible to create more than a one-line stub. Journal is not mentioned by the external link provided. One article in the National Froebel Foundation Bulletin is listed on the EL, the Froebel Journal is not mentioned either. The only source confirming that these two are, in fact, successor publications is this link. No evidence of notability, does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a possibility of a move to a successor journal? Abductive  (reasoning) 15:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep on the basis that this is a stub and requires expansion rather than deletion. It is notable insofar as it is a journal, albeit a short duration one, of the Froebel Institute Society. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Also, why is there no article on the Froebel Institute, if it is notable? Abductive  (reasoning) 15:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One cannot have it both ways you know :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge No indication of notability. Reywas92 Talk 02:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * merge This and the successor journals are all of them independently notable, but it has been our consistent practice to merge in cases like this. I am not sure it is actually a good idea; I think we should follow outside authorities when possible, and library practice is to  treat every substantial change as  a distinct publication, as is done also by our usual authoritative reference for periodicals, Ulrich's. But it might not be the best use of energy to try to reverse that decision.    DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. I wouldn't call eight years too much of "a short period of time", as such a requirement would mean that we couldn't have any articles on journals started after 2002, but in fact this journal was much longer lived, being founded in 1899, as reported in these sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But what then of the successor journal? The name change must be acknowledged. Sears Tower was moved to Willis Tower.  Abductive  (reasoning) 07:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are two successor journals makes it pretty obvious that this was not just a name change. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Phil Bridger; I'm not convinced that time period is a good way at all of judging the importance of a journal. If the journal was actually used for academic research/debate, stocked in academic libraries, and cited by other authors, that'd do me. TheGrappler (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I never intended my comment on the shortness of publication history to be read as an argument for deletion. I was just providing background information and as such it is relevant: the shorter the history, the more difficult it becomes to meet the notability guidelines. But, of course, in principle a journal that only ever published one single issue can become notable. In this case, it looks lmike the history is longer anyway, as shown by Phil Bridger. One problem remains: there are still preciously few sources that allows us to say anything with certainty about this journal (or the successor journals, as far as I can see) and I have to note that none of the "keep" !votes here have made any effort at improving the current stub. So if this AfD is closed as a "keep" or "no consensus", we'll be stuck with a 1-line stub containing hardly any information (the years of establishment/disestablishment, which probably is wrong anyway). In the past, when suitable sources came up during an AfD that I initiated, I have used those to improve the article and withdrawn the nom. I feel compelled not to do that here, as I don't see how I can improve on the current article, despite Phil's sources. I keep almost 2000 journal articles on my watchlist, but I'll remove this one after the AfD, whatever the outcome. --Crusio (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2010 (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.