Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews


 * 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. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  01:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article contains a list of references to blogs (not reliable sources, some of them not independent either), none of them contributing to notability in the sense of GNG. There is also some name-dropping listing notable members of the editorial board (but notability is not inherited). Article dePRODded with reason "I think it is notable, was mentioned in NYtimes recently too http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/04/world/derek-parfit-philosopher-who-explored-identity-and-moral-choice-dies-at-74.html". This was only an in-passing mention. PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete No indication of meeting WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Agree with nominator across the board. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TRANSWIKI To Wikiversity. Michael Ten (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The article presents a picture of a reasonably normal journal — 15 years old, good people on editorial boards, some minor controversies — but no evidence of actual notability as a journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- unless it's a predatory journal, I don't see a reason to delete. The article states: "Reviews are commissioned and vetted by the Editorial Board. Only newly released books and anthologies are reviewed, not reprints or new editions unless they contain substantial new material", i.e. it's possible that the journal would be used as a source on Wikipedia. The editor is a notable individual and apparently an expert in the field. I view journals more like publishers -- they are notable for their work and what they publish, so meeting GNG is harder. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not just that it misses GNG (which indeed few journals make), but even the much more permissive NJournals (which currently is highly contested as being too permissive, see the talk there). This has no sources, nothing indicating any notability at all. --Randykitty (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, this sounds convincing. The content is indeed weak. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 23 January 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.