Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confluenze


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Confluenze

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relatively new journal. Rated "class A" by the Italian "National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes", but given the list this is sourced to, this does not amount to much. No independent sources, none of the listed selective databases is major and selective. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As explained previously, the nomination in the ANVUR list could be regarded as criterion 1 of WP:NJournals. The National registry lists many international and national journals, in different subject area, as core journals for every sector. It is indeed a national registry, but the journals it lists are global, and of course it uses impact factor and many other indicators for the evaluation. This is the main reason I think this journal is notable enough for staying in Wikipedia, the others reasons (international audiance, committee, ecc.) are secondary ones and don't suffice alone. --Aubrey (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: for what is worth, here's the list of databases in which the journal is indexed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubrey (talk • contribs) 11:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Non-English journal, so unlikely to be indexed in normal indices, but "In 2012, the journal acquired class A status in the evaluation lists published by the "National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes"" - that seems to give it an equivalent recognition, of sorts at least. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment There's some sort of ref at . -- Trevj (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 03:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per Aubrey. There's some WP:POTENTIAL here. I believe that some non-English language sources might exist, based on the evidence. My belief may be wrong. So give it time until we know for sure. Vcessayist (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. If there are no sources, it should be deleted. If sources are published later on, then an article could perhaps be created, if they make it sufficiently notable. As your argument goes, we should abandon AfD, because sources "may" turn up for just about any subject, of course. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:27, 9 October 2012 (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.