Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonprofit Quarterly


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Nonprofit Quarterly

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

With the exception of reference no.3 in the article, there is little on the high seas that I can see, which makes this pass under WP:GNG. 'Mentions here and there' scenario. My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 18:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a poor wiki article written by a rank newbie, but this is a frequently cited standard reference and easily meets all notability requirements. It gets 4.5 MILLION web hits alone. I would also like 's opinion on this. Softlavender (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Uncertain I'm having some trouble identifying this with either of the two publications listed in Worldcat.  DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed I saw something that had a very similar name to this, but seemed to me that it was not this at all. My name is not dave  (talk/contribs) 07:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is only one "nonprofit quarterly" and there are no similarly named journals. As the wiki article notes, the print journal was launched in 1999, and the online version at nonprofitquarterly.org (noted in the wiki article) was added in 2006. Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I recognized that this might be the case, but the entries in worldcat seemed too sketchy to prove anything,, [ and . [[User:DGG| DGG]] ( talk ) 14:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is indeed definitely the case, which is why I linked the two WorldCat listings in my comment to you and the nominator. Since there is only one entity by this name, are you interested in revising your "Uncertain" !vote? Softlavender (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * what other evidence do you have for this?  DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There could not be two unrelated concurrently running nationwide publications in the U.S. titled "Nonprofit Quarterly" both headquartered in Boston and both published by Third Sector New England. Both the online and print versions are known as "NPQ", as seen on the print version and the online version: . As the Wikipedia article states, the website version is at nonprofitquarterly.org. For more proof, check:, , , , , , , , , . Softlavender (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Edited to add:, I answered your question ^^^, but you don't seem to have this page watchlisted, so I am pinging you. Softlavender (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree it's probable, but I don't say positively in the absence of proper bibliographic records. I may be unduly skeptical, but most of my experience is European journals with complicated histories.  DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that there could be two unrelated concurrently running nationwide publications in the U.S. titled "Nonprofit Quarterly", both headquartered in Boston, both published by Third Sector New England, and both known as "NPQ"? Softlavender (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am saying one could be a rival, split or precursor  partial split or partial successor to the other. I've seen dozens of such cases, some in which the situation was not easily clarified, some of which each publication asserted it was the real one.   What I actually think is that one is the online version of the other, or was named separately as an online version for a period. But the thing to do is get some evidence, not hypotheses.  DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What would you recognize as "evidence"? I gave 12 links above. And yes, of course "one is the online version of the other"; that is what the wiki article states, that is what all 12 of my links prove, and that is what I have been asserting all along. Softlavender (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep,  clarify, and expand is the upshot of what I''ve ben saying.  DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Is cited in books and journals. I think even I, a profit oriented fella, have heard of this publication prior to the AFD. Deletion is not cleanup. It isn't a great stub - but it is properly sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2017 (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.