Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Información Filosófica


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 17:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Información Filosófica

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD removed by article creator after adding "reference" (link to DOAJ, which is not a selective database). PROD reason was: "Unreferenced stub with barely any information. Notability doubtful, apparently not indexed anywhere. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." This still holds, hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weakening delete, but without prejudice, so article can go back up if secondary source for notability. Is it notable?
 * Mantenga débil - Hay aproximadamente 1,990 resultados en Google Académico para Informacion Filosofica, una indicacion buena para empezar. Whatever that means.|en|Mantenga%20d%C3%A9bil%20-%20Hay%20aproximadamente%201%2C990%20resultados%20en%20Google%20Acad%C3%A9mico%20para%20Informacion%20Filosofica%2C%20una%20indicacion%20buena%20para%20empezar.%20 :) I added a source that it has been around since 1945, which for a philosophy journal is pretty notable in itself. As mentor-meta-me says, "I think this kind of duration is remarkable for a philosophy journal".
 * My vote is now weak keep, but I am not yet changing it to "strong keep", since I would like to encourage some other info to get into article. A solid secondary source referring to its notability in some way would be best, but even pointing out some prominent article or author publishing in it would be a helpful start. I will go check that its creators were notified of this discussion. PPdd (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC) From the department of redundancy department, "recitation of some notable articles or article authors would be helpful." PPdd (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks PPdd. I added four references - two in Spanish and two in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noslackingnow (talk • contribs) 09:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC) * I think that was a Keep from new editor Noslackingnow. PPdd (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Noslackingnow, if you want to keep, then you need to help out with some more info. PPdd (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment 1/ Philosophy journals have been around for much longer than since 1945. In any case, having been around for a long time is not one of the criteria for notability. If it has been around for so long and it has some notability, then sources should be available. Their absence is telling. 2/ The "sources" that have been added to the article are trivial. None of the listings given is a selective and notable database/indexing service. 3/ As for the Google hits, first of all, number of GHits is irrelevant for establishing notability. Second, there are not 1900 hits: searching for "Informacion Filosofica" I get 492 results. Many of those do not refer to this journal (the title means "philosophical information", so is bound to be used in other contexts as well). Indeed, one of the "sources" added to the article was about another journal (Pensiamento: Revista de investigación e Información filosófica; note that the previously mentioned Google search results will include this journal, too). None of the usual requirements for establishing notability have been met yet, as far as I can see. Given the paltry Google search results, I doubt this will be possible. --Crusio (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: the "1945" is incorrect. The bibliographic info in the reference given indicates that this is about Pensiamento (see above). In fact, the home page of Información Filosófica lists only 14 issues, the first one published in 2005. --Crusio (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No additional info has been forthcoming from creating editor, not even reference to notability of any authors or articles. Crusio says the "1945 "info is incorrect. There is an inherent problem with foreign language sources, especially if the inserting editor does not provide clear tranlation for information in sources for verification. PPdd (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Delete per Crusio. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:38, 8 March 2011 (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.