Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth Surface Dynamics


 * 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 redirect to European Geosciences Union. Davewild (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Earth Surface Dynamics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "(Copernicus journals have a history of becoming listed in the WP:NOTABILITY indices once the required time period has passed, and is certainly influential already in its field." No evidence of influence available. Notability is not inherited and even much larger and longer established publishers than Copernicus from time to time start journals that fail after only a few years. PROD reason therefore still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Copied from my user talk page response to User:Randykitty:
 * "Thanks for the notification. I removed it. I can add some sources and give my assurances that it will be indexed in the future. But if you feel you would like to delete it, do go ahead under the condition that it is archived and re-added once it is ISI-indexed, this being a process that just takes some time. One other option would be to just list it in a page on Copernicus Publications alongside their other journals, but that means that we can't use the nice journal infobox template... I unfortunately do not have time for WP legal-wrangling at present -- or for many contributions, even more sadly. So I am unlikely to do very much. Been gone for quite some time and just moving slowly back in. Andy Wickert (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)"
 * Andy Wickert (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, see WP:CRYSTAL. Even large publishers like Sage, Elsevier, or Springer sometimes start new journals that fail after a few years. I see no reason why we should assume that Copernicus somehow is different. If ever this gets notable, we can create an article, but at this point, it's simply WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and remove, then. I forget -- are deleted articles archived so they can be brought back from the dead? Or should this be sandboxed somewhere? Andy Wickert (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they are not and deleted articles should not be sandboxed either. However, you can easily make a copy and store it on your computer. Alternatively, once the journal becomes notable, you can go to WP:DRV and request undeletion (perhaps that's actually what you meant with archiving :-). --Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to European Geosciences Union, where is it already mentioned. I was unable to find independent secondary sources describing the journal in depth and with no impact factor (yet) nor indexing in selective databases, the journal seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NJournals notability thresholds. Nonetheless, it is indexed in GEOBASE and GeoRef, both independent reliable geology indices, so basic facts about the journal are verifiable independent of the EGU. I suggest redirecting to the EGU publications section, where ESD appears in a list of EGU journals. Earth Surface Dynamics is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted. A redirect preserves the article history, should the journal gain an impact factor. No prejudice to re-creation of the article if multiple independent in-depth reliable sources develop, or the journal gains an impact factor. --Mark viking (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good solution to me -- sorry for not noticing that it was already mentioned there and creating a page too soon! Andy Wickert (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect, WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2015 (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.