Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JournalServer


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

JournalServer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unsuccessful project. Not obviously notable and lacking references. Rathfelder (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep Even though the project was short lived, it was notable. See 1, 2, and other brief mentions I can see. It was an early collaborative project in open publishing, so significant. Mccapra (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Mccapra's ref. no. 2 appears solid, but ref. no. 1 appears to be a report issued by Open Journal about themselves. It is not clear to me that this is about JournalServer or independent of the subject if it is - it does not mention the term "JournalServer" but instead merely talks about publishing a couple of journals using "jouranl server". Even if it is independent of the subject, it is not WP:SIGCOV as it is a bare mention. In my WP:BEFORE I couldn't find any other instances of WP:SIGCOV and as such this fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per FOARP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Further, what is the value of an article on a now defunct short lived website that carried academic journals that are still available in other formats? It's doubtful this information will be of any value to the reading public because the content housed at this website is now housed elsewhere. For example, the Wiley Online Library Database Model 2018 houses the Journal of the Chinese Chemical Society and the Indian Journal of Tuberculosis is housed at the DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals. Anybody looking for the content once at this website can find it elsewhere in a search at their local library very easily. There is really nothing notable about a short-lived academic website warehouse with minimal content which has been moved elsewhere to larger hosts of academic journals.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2019 (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.