Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanity (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   no consensus. no consensus right now but if sources don't appear soon the next listing will undoubtedly go delete Spartaz Humbug! 10:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Humanity (journal)

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

New journal, only 1 issue just now published. Has not yet had time to become notable. No independent sources, not indexed anywhere. Does not meet WP:NJournals and WP:GNG even less. Article creation premature. I originally prodded this article, but the prod was removed because for some reason I forgot to enter a prodreason... And as a second prod is not possible, here we are. Crusio (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC) The publication is put out by a major academic press, backed by an impressive editorial collective and board (feel free to check the included link), has an established web presence, and the second issue is already underway. This nomination for deletion is unwarranted and spurious. Spannungsfeld (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as the article stands. First issue published in October 2010 - no matter who publishes it, it could be a total flop. "This nomination for deletion is unwarranted and spurious."? No, it isn't. It's quite warranted as the article is unreferenced and gives no claim to any notability beyond the publisher and editor being blue-linked. As to 'spurious', I quote the definition in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spurious: "not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit." This nomination is here, it follows the rules of Wikipedia and cannot be defined as spurious. Your dictionary might be worded differently. Referring once more to the article - there could be notability. We need more than a solitary link to the subject's website. Please see WP:GNG and WP:RS. In my opinion, the article should have been deleted back in June, as no issue had then been published - according to the current state of the article - WP:CRYSTAL. I am quite prepared to change my !vote if evidence is produced that this publication is more than just a flash in the pan issue with no future. Peridon (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * PS "an impressive editorial collective and board (feel free to check the included link)" - I have. The website doesn't mention the board. Nor does it appear to mention the editor's name, unless there's a hidden corner I've missed. No-one seems to have opened any discussion in the blog section, either. Peridon (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * NeutralI am sympathetic to the idea that its "too soon" for notability to be established. But I do think this journal has several points in its favour. First, it is true that this is a new journal from a prestigous publisher and it does have an impressive editorial board (see here - it is rather confusingly named "masthead" their site). Second, it has already been included within atleast one academic journal index Project MUSE which suggests it is already gaining some weight. That being said, it has not had time to gained significant citations or demonstrated influence in its own right, even though it seems likely that it will shortly do so. Therefore I can understand why it might not be deemed notable at present.Ajbpearce (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lesson in semantics—I'll spare all involved generous counsel in regard to the optative mood—but I was aiming for the latter half of "Lacking authenticity or *validity* in essence or origin" as defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, since the application of the notability criterion would strike me as more warranted, for example, were somebody to trumpet his or her basement philosophy zine as an academic journal. There's no pan-flashery to speak of here, I assure you. That being said, your stringency deserves respect, even though it would, the role of academic discourse in modern society being what it is, effectively serve to restrict the appearance of academic journals on Wikipedia to those at least one or two years in age. Stringent, then, to the point of injury, as notability accretes more slowly here than elsewhere, which is to say not as quickly as in more frenetic, more media-saturated cultural domains of wiki-able noteworthiness, if you will, where the "flash-in-the-pan" metaphor would be apt. Spannungsfeld (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to steal 'pan-flashery'... I'm well aware that academic publications can be harder to reference than fashion mags (although, believe me, even they can be troublesome). And that too often here on Wikipedia politeness in the form of an 'unreferenced' tag gets absolutely no response - whereas a bit of rudeness does. There must be one (at least) independent reference out there. See what you can do - I'm (almost) always willing to change my !vote when bribed with references. Peridon (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/10/26/humanity/ Spannungsfeld (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WP:RS (I usually type that in a threatening tone...) - blogs are only really any good if the blogger has an article on Wikipedia (that isn't being considered for deletion...). You could try listing the board and indicating (briefly) what they are notable for, or saying who the contributors are (ditto) - if the mag can't be found, accumulated notability of participants might help. Not saying 'will'. Peridon (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The blog is run in conjunction with the SSRC (Social Science Research Council). Spannungsfeld (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The core editorial collective can be found here, while the full editorial board is listed here, or at least once the link is functioning again. I'm not able to list the accomplishments of every single person involved, sorry. Spannungsfeld (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There is pretty good consensus among regulars at the Wikiproject Academic Journals that the identity of editorial board members and their accomplishments or lack thereof is not something that should be listed in an article on a journal (violates WP:NOTADIRECTORY and does not say much if anything about notability of a journal. (Because even mediocre journals will get some notable people on their boards). And, yes, this implies that it is difficult for a newly-established journal to satisfy our notability criteria. Which is as it should be: even major publishers establish new journals that sometimes fail after 1 or 2 years. It may be less frequent than with "minor" publishers, but it happens. So before a journal has some reliable independent sources, or is included in really major selective databases, there is not enough basis for an article here. --Crusio (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.