Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Mundane Behavior


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Mundane Behavior

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Journal that existed only briefly. Never was indexed in any selective database. There are some in-passing mentions in reliable sources (like this brief paragraph in the LA Times), but no in-depth coverage. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. That link points to abstracts of three LA Times articles. When you click on the links to those articles, the articles themselves are more than a brief paragraph. James500 (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2013 (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 ) 00:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NTEMP and WP:GNG: Google News shows ample secondary coverage. — rybec   02:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It got plenty of coverage in the popular press during its brief existence. Most of the coverage was of the "you'll get a chuckle out of this" variety, but still, a sociology journal that gets written up in USA Today, the New York Times, and a dozen other reliable sources is notable by any standard. The article needs to be expanded and some of these sources added. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn For some reason, the article titles on the LA Times page did not seem to link to anything when I nominated this article. Now they do... Must have been some transient glitch either on the website or on my computer. It's all still a bit meager (as MelanieN says: the "chuckle variety"), but just enough, I guess. --Randykitty (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2013 (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.