Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurly-Burly (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. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hurly-Burly (Journal)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not included in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Justification for non-deletion:

Hurly-Burly is a notable journal with a solid reputation in the field of psychoanalysis and the wider field of contemporary cultural theory. The former President of the World Association of Psychoanalysis, Éric Laurent, stated this year at the NLS Congress in Tel Aviv: "I would like to iterate just what an instrument of public service the journal of the New Lacanian School is" (see: http://www.lacan.com/thesymptom/?page_id=2593).

The editorial policy of Hurly-Burly is opposed to peer-review selection, thus precluding inclusion on academic databases, which indeed it has never sought.

Since the creation of the article on the morning of 6 December 2012, a number of links to the article have been created, often by adding hyperlinks to existing references to the journal on other Wikipedia pages. comment added by Refusecollection (talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Refusecollection (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think Refusecollection has, unwantedly, made a pretty good case for deletion. If this is the best you can come up with in defense of this article, I rest my case... --Randykitty (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Randykitty. I'm afraid I don't follow your argumentation. I took it that your point was that Hurly-Burly was not available on academic journal databases. I sought to explain why Hurly-Burly would not be found on such databases. Does this exclude it automatically from inclusion on Wikipedia? Or did your reference to my "unwanted" case for deletion allude to some other factor? This is my first article entry on Wikipedia, and any further advice would be much appreciated. Refusecollection (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry for being a bit sarcastic in my previous post. The point is, for an academic journal to be notable according to WP:NJournals, inclusion in selective databases is an important criterion. Your post showed that I did not simply miss such an inclusion, but explained why there will not be an inclusion in the future either. It's not the only way to become notable for a journal, but for that we need independent reliable sources, which apparently are not available either. That's why I said that your post basically was an argument for deletion. Please note that "notability in the WP sense" is not a judgement about the value of lack thereof of something, it just is an evaluation of the sources that exist about something. Being an encyclopedia, WP articles cannot be based on our personal opinions/judgments. Hope this explains a bit better (and less sarcastic). Creating new articles is one of the hardest things to do here, I would advise you to first get a feel of things by working on some existing articles, perhaps participate in a few more of these AfD debates, and then continue perhaps with the creation of new articles, that might prevent some disappointment. --Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Randykitty. Thank you for your reply. I understood the situation regarding the independent reliable sources, and I was simply making it clear to anyone who might be inclined to search (either in support of the Journal's WP inclusion or seeking its deletion) would not find anything in such databases and indexes. In seeking to comply with the WP WP:NJournals criteria, I have added secondary source references to the article and to the talk page. Hurly-Burly is a young journal, but in its short history has earned itself a powerful and notable reputation, not just in the field of psychoanalysis, but in the wider field of cultural theory and contemporary philosophy. I am thoroughly convinced that it warrants inclusion on WP, but I am wary of my own incompetence in arguing its case here! I will continue to search through the relevant pages offering help and criteria, but would welcome any further information from you (whether in support of inclusion or deletion) pertaining to those criteria that are unrelated to database/index data (which are not applicable here).

Refusecollection (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the argument to delete this journal:

I am surprised and rather shocked that a journal such as Hurly-Burly, that has such a world-wide readership (UK, USA, Australia, Greece, Israel, Poland, Ireland...) and which is such an important source for those working in psychoanalytic practice on such a scale, would be deleted because of the strict application of these rules. The two major psychoanalytic institutions on an international scale are the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA) and the World Association of Psychoanalysis (WAP). The IPA's English language journal "The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis" is recognised by Wikipedia, whereas the English language journal of the WAP, Hurly-Burly, is being contested? It might be noted that Hurly-Burly is the only English language publication to have official translations of papers by Jacques Lacan such as: "Report on Seminar XI" (HB issue 5), "The 1st International Encounter of the Freudian Field" (HB issue 6), "Postface to Seminar XI" (HB issue 7), "Address on Child Psychoses" (HB issue 8). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blabbler (talk • contribs) 17:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC) — Blabbler (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment The addition of an infobox to the article today prompted me to look up the journal's OCLC number. While doing so, I noticed that there are 3 (three) university libraries that carry this journal (one each in France, British Columbia, and New Zealand), another indication of the current lack of notability of the journal. Two references have been added to the article since the start of this AfD, one to a blog, another of unclear notability/independence. --Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Dear Randykitty. Thank you for your clean-up work on the infobox and text. Could you just expand a little on your comment that "Éric Laurent, the former president of the WAP" is of "unclear notability"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refusecollection (talk • contribs) 13:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Following Randykitty's remark that reference 1 is to a blog (thus implying unclear notability) I have changed the reference link to the same quote in a more notable source. Refusecollection (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment My remark about "unclear notability" did not regard Laurent, but the website where his address was published. The same goes for the above-mentioned blog, which is now sourced to just another journal of absolutely unclear notability, Umbr(a). --Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I’ve just stumbled upon this article and its deletion notice. It’s quite remarkable that the inclusion on WP of a Journal of this stature should be contested. Hurly-Burly features important historic documents that are unavailable elsewhere in English: Jacques-Lacan’s texts from the 60s, 70s and 80s; first-hand accounts by people in analysis with Lacan; testimonies from people who have been through the process of the Pass that Lacan invented in 1967. There is nothing of the like in English. The texts by Lacan alone ensure that this Journal easily meets criteria 3 of WP:Njournals. Guzave (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  22:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Lacan passed away in 1981. It's difficult to see how a journal established 22 years later can have "a historic purpose or ... a significant history" by providing translations of these old publications of him. Please base your arguments on WP guidelines/policy. --Randykitty (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:31, 19 December 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.