Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noesis (online 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. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Noesis (online journal)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an article which has never had a single independent source, on a project of no evident importance. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - It does look like a dead issue. HullIntegrity  \ talk / 23:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning  talk  20:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  20:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 21:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - this article about an important tool for a specific academic field. It is listed by universities as a recommended search engine. St Johns Colin Allen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonpatterns (talk • contribs) 21:29, 28 March 2015‎


 * Keep Don't know how relevant it is now, and the article as it exists currently could certainly be better, but it's an Internet open access scholarship pioneer. It's recommended in the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy (brief mention, indeed), here's a paper about it -- a primary source published in secondary publication, site reviewed in Reference Reviews, article about it in Campus Technology. Here are some sources of unknown quality (I don't have access at the moment): Serials Review, Philosophy of religion: a critical survey of Internet resources, another from Reference Reviews, and the several primary and secondary sources collected on the Noesis information page. It's not a slam dunk, but it passes GNG. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment From the look of it, this is a bibliographic database, not an academic journal. Correct? --Randykitty (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A database, search engine, curated directory of sorts, etc. A reference site rather than a journal, yes, but one with an editorial board. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Most databases have a oard under one name or another, which determines what to include in the database and what not. --Randykitty (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm just pointing it out because, to me anyway, when looking at the aesthetics of the site through a 2015 lens, it could be taken for one of the many thoughtless directories or custom Google searches that spring up to make a few AdSense bucks (rather than a scholarly endeavor). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep The sources cited above by Rhododendrites are fully sufficient for notability.  DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Though I am hearing for the first time, above sources are conclusive. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2015 (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.