Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Correspondences (journal)


 * 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. With concerns about the validity of the target, a redirect is not a valid AtD in this case. Star  Mississippi  15:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Correspondences (journal)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator with reason "It is a notable journal in the field, listed in Directory of Open Access Journals and funded by the European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism. Furthermore, important scholars such as Wouter Hanegraaff have published in the journal." None of this, including the trivial content that was added at the same time, are proof of notability and this still fails NJournals and GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable journals, fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think the article should be deleted. the Directory of Open Access Journals is selective, as they only accept journals that meet high quality standards and exercise peer review. Furthermore, the fact that it is funded by the ESSWE and listed on their website is significant. The ESSWE is the most important scholarly society in their field. Simply measuring the article on the basis of WP:NJournals is no argument for deletion. This essay has no official status within Wikipedia. Anyway, I will try to improve the article a bit the following days. Schenkstroop (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * DOAJ is near-trival. The only criteria are that you are open access and that you aren't predatory. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comments: 1/ ESSWE: the citation to ESWE is rather trivial, they list a great many resources and what "they" say is actually stuff copied verbatim from the journal's website. 2/ NJournals is designed to make it easier for academic journals to become notable. But you're right, it's only an essay (albeit one that has been used as a guide to notability for journals for a decade or so), so you're free to ignore it. In that case, the article needs to meet GNG, which only very few journals do. But if you can find a few sources independent of the journal that discuss it in depth, you're done and I'll withdraw the nom. --Randykitty (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay fine, delete it. Schenkstroop (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Delete, merge or redirect? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete this journal is non-notable and not indexed in any selective database. There is lack of independent sources to support the standalone article at this point. The journal fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG.~ Nanosci (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not the publisher, and is a bad target for a redirect. That's just some organization that partly funded the journal for a few years. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.