Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical Culture (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 delete.  Sandstein  10:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Physical Culture (journal)

 * – ( 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 dePRODded by creator without reason provided. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I accept your suggestions and changes in my article Physical Culture (journal) and hope you will not delete it. Physical Culture is very important scientific journal in Serbia. Meny authors from Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia... publish in this journal.(salegolub) —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is indeed a "very important scientific journal", then there certainly are reliable sources confirming this. If you have any, please list them here or add them to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Unable to find sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I made some changes in the article and hope it's OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salegolub (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, it isn't. What is needed to meet our inclusion criteria is for a journal to be either included in at least one very selective database or in-depth coverage in independent sources. The sources that you are added today are a link to the journal's homepage (not independent) and an article which was written by somebody working at the faculty that is publishing this journal (not independent either). --Randykitty (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  00:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The claim to be the oldest scientific journal in Serbia (in the Bokan source) seems like the sort of thing that should make it notable, but to me ends up more discrediting the source, first because in what sense is this actually science and second because there are much older journals with that claim (e.g. Voice of SANU as listed in List of Serbian-language journals, Acta entomologica Serbica, or Serbian Astronomical Journal). But this journal does have a long history, and on that basis if multiple less-dubious sources that cover it in-depth turn up, I would be willing to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2016 (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.