Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kapralova society 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  CatcherStorm    talk   06:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Kapralova society journal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable publication, no claim of significance, references don't indicate significance either  CatcherStorm    talk   03:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 06:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as no sources support its significance. Fails WP:GNG. WikiAviator (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I retract my vote per recent improvements made by users.WikiAviator (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per PamD.WikiAviator (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – It's reviewed in Notes, Vol. 68, No. 1 (September 2011), ; the Open Music Libray lists it, too. Many music departments in universities list it on their resources page. Google Scholar shows ~60 citations. Wikipedia itself cites it at least 16 times. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It's a low quality article that reads more like an advert and needs a complete rewrite. I also question why the journal is notable enough for an article but we don't have one for the publishing society itself. I'd prefer to see Kapralova Society, with a section on the journal. Sixty citations on Google Scholar isn't very much at all and I struggle to see it clearly meeting the criteria in the (essay) WP:JOURNALCRIT. However, despite all this it seems to cross the threshold of notability as despite the relatively low number of citations, those citing it are high quality sources themselves (e.g., Journal of Vocational Behavior). QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per QuiteUnusual, but Move to Kapralova Society Journal (ie get the caps right - but don't move during AfD). Failing that, Merge to Vítězslava Kaprálová as part of her legacy, but it does seem to have a much wider scope. Pam  D  09:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned it up a bit, fixed the refs, and trimmed the huge list of articles to three examples with links to online. Pam  D  09:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice set of edits, vast improvement, thanks - QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per the excellent improvements made by PamD. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY thanks to User:PamD. It should be moved to the correct spelling however once the AfD is closed. IphisOfCrete (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep would be a much better fit at the society article, but it's good enough for now given the two reviews focusing on the journal. Merging would still be the best option though. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.