Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estudios Franciscanos


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  00:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Estudios Franciscanos

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article de-PRODded with reason "extensive article in deWP & their notability standards are stricter than ours. Therefore, would need discussion." I'm not sure about the German WP being stricter than us (I regularly see articles that would never make it here because of insufficient sourcing), but in any case, the German article has the same references as the article here. Apart from a brief paragraph in the Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana, there is nothing that suggests any notability. It is not in any selective database that I checked (not even the ATLA Religion Database). In short, PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Potential Keep -- This looks like a specialist academic journal. Sources are probably failing to pick it up because it is not in English; citation indices are not good in dealing with the arts, and particularly religious issues.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But isn't "Sources are probably failing to pick it up" (for whatever reason) the very definitions of "not notable" (in the sense of "has not been noted")? --Randykitty (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per "historically important in its subject area" (WP:NJOURNALS, #3). StAnselm (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Any evidence that this is "historically important"? --Randykitty (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It has a long history of being cited: over 5000 Google Books and 1600 Google Scholar results. This is a significant journal. StAnselm (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Both of the nominator's questions need to be answered. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk,  contribs ) 22:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 22:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my view, an article in the Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana is sufficient evidence of notability, regardless of length. As a comparison, the GEC article on Eduardo Dualde and the one on Miquel Espinós Curto are of roughly equal length, the one on Baldomer Gili i Roig somewhat shorter. Many Wikipedia articles seem to have no equivalent in the GEC, such as Luis Bru or Ruperto Biete. --Hegvald (talk) 01:40, 14 November 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.