Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jahres-Bericht über die Fortschritte der chemischen Technologie für Fabrikanten, Chemiker, Pharmaceuten, Hütten- und Forstleute und Cameralisten


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Jahres-Bericht über die Fortschritte der chemischen Technologie für Fabrikanten, Chemiker, Pharmaceuten, Hütten- und Forstleute und Cameralisten

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Entirely unsourced with no claim of notability. Gaioa (T C L) 14:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions.  Gaioa  (T C L) 14:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Gaioa  (T C L) 14:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  Gaioa  (T C L) 14:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete not every scientific journal every published is notable. There is nothing here indicating this work was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping who previously discussed the journal's notability on the talk page. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If kept, should probably be moved to the slighter shorter Jahres-Bericht über die Leistungen der chemischen Technologie, which was the journal's title for most of its history. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Sources for a century-old German scientific periodical are going to be hard to find, but given that it was published for nearly a hundred years, is held in many library collections, and the founding editor is notable and has articles in other languages, I think it's reasonable to assume that they are out there. I've added a few details and references to the article. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: As I said before, I would expect a journal this old to be notable, but frankly, I can't find anything. Pinging who might be able to come up with something. --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I found and added two brief reviews of this journal in another journal (both in the same other journal). They're not independent of each other, so the case for WP:GNG is weak, but I think that and the other in-passing references already in the article might barely be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep With the work of and, it's reached the point where holding onto the page makes sense, I think. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep mostly on its historical merits. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:51, 19 April 2021 (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.