Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Student-run journal that appears very irregularly. An email to an editor (Crazypaco) claims that the journal still exists, but the last issue listed on their own website dates from 2007. Regardless of this, the journal does not seem to be indexed anywhere. There is a claim that it was "recognized by The New York Times", but this is sourced to the journal's own website and it is otherwise unverifiable whether this is an in-depth coverage or just an in-passing mention. None of the other independent sources presented contribute more than in-passing mentions and fail to establish notability. Fails WP:Notability (academic journals) and WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Notability (academic journals)
 * I would like to point out to the moderator that upon AFD, no notifications were provided to current contributors (the original author being retired) per Guide to deletion, and since the article was nominated over a major U.S. holiday, the AFD may have gone largely unnoticed. I am not suggesting any inappropriateness by the nominator, but request that in light of this, that this AfD be given ample time for additional discussion. CrazyPaco (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This journal is not circulated to many libraries (which I would expect would be its target subscriber base), nor has it received significant amounts of coverage in independent reliable sources. Perhaps in the future, it will be ascertained to be notable, but so far I don't see that as being the case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Alas, I think it falls a little short of the notability threshold. One or two other independent sources which give PUR more than a passing mention would be enough to sway me, but I didn't find any with a brief google. bobrayner (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The immediate two delete comments above seem to suggest that the article could warrant a merge and redirect (perhaps to University of Pittsburgh Honors College) as opposed to an outright delete. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an irregularly published, somewhat unique and difficult to categorize journal, but it is operational and it is notable for various reasons, one being that it was the first the first peer-reviewed undergraduate academic journal in the country. As with the vast majority of peer-reviewed academic journals, they are the primary sources of documenting and distributing accumulated knowledge, but are not themselves typically the subject of coverage by secondary sources. Therefore, the Notability (academic journals) was created to help in this conundrum. It proposes that if a journal meets any one of the listed conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, it is notable.


 * This journal could be (1) "considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area" in that it is considered to be influential in its subject area (undergraduate research in the humanities) as depicted in other professional academic literature (see "The Independent Researcher: A Model that Works". CUR Quarterly. Reading, PA: Council on Undergraduate Research. 28: 1: 24. Fall 2007). In addition, the Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review is also almost ubiquitously found among lists of outlets for undergraduates to publish their original research (see example here), suggesting awareness of its stature in its context.


 * (2) "The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources". It would be a stretch to say this journal is frequently cited, but the articles it publishes have been cited in other academic literature published in traditional academic journals (such as Pennsylvania History 63(2)(1996): 204-231). Further, the PUR is listed alongside other professional journals as a philosophical resource (see here and here). It is also carried in various libraries across the country (see here and here) and is indexed among the "commonly used periodicals" by The Library of Congress (see here), which total a small but international presence (listing in 10 US and 8 international libraries via WorldCat). As an aside, a caveat that may impair the numbers of electronic citations for this journal is the off-line (pre-internet era) nature of many of its early volumes.


 * And (3) "The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history," which seems to qualify this journal based on the before-mentioned fact that it was the first peer-reviewed undergraduate academic journal in the country (perhaps the world), as well as its 30 years of continued existence, albeit with sometimes infrequent publication. According to its own website, it also has some significant contributors, such as George Stephanopoulos. It's website also claims some notoriety from The New York Times which I can not independently source or elaborate on, although I assume the statement would be factual.


 * This journal also seems to fall within the scope of certain caveats. Its uniqueness and history as an outlet for multi-disciplinary undergraduate research and the fact that its articles are original and peer reviewed in manner befitting of other professional journals suggests that is notable in its field according to the above criteria, and, counter to the original nominator's claim, passes notability tests according to Notability (academic journals), specifically by #3, but also by #1.


 * Now, to examine some of the arguments against it. "It publishes irregularly" and " is not circulated to many libraries". Neither of these are established criteria for or against either academic journal notability (per Notability (academic journals) Note #7) or general notability. Nor is the idea that its website must be up-to-date. I can confirm that I received a reply within one day from the current editor after a simple email inquiring about its status and was assured it was operational and working on updating its website. I am happy to forward the correspondence for verification, or alternatively, the email address is available on the journal's website if one would like to make independent inquires. In any case, notability is not temporary, so even if it became inactive or dead, that would not disqualify it from notability. Another thing that may hinder ascertaining its notability is the inability to access its (pre-internet) off-line volumes, and thus its lack of appearance in "google searches" should not be held against the journal (also per Note #4-6). CrazyPaco (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, Notability (academic journals) Note #6 states, "For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat." Since this journal is in the humanities, whether it is, or is not, circulated to many libraries is indeed an established criterion as to judging its notability as an academic journal. Paco has provided links above to the library holdings listings of this journal's print and electronic editions on Worldcat, which seem to me to be few in number. Other editors here may believe that the number of libraries holding this journal is adequate to establish notability, or that the journal is notable for other reasons, but this is a judgment call each participant in this AfD will have to make for themselves. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment here is the Spring 2006 issue of the Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review, posted online here. I reccomend reading the "Letter from the Editor" beginning on page 6. It appears to be similar to the preface for a book. It indicates that out of 60 submissions, only four were chosen by its (peer review) selection process. Also I recommend reading this: Council on Undergraduate Research publication entitled Quarterly (Fall 2007) first posted by Crazy-Paco above. Steve Quinn (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, the Past issues can be viewed here. It does seem to be published in an irregualar manner. Steve Quinn (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete -  Based on the above responses, and my own research - unfortunately, I don't think this article is meant for Wikipedia as a stand alone article. Wikipedia, and certain projects, have established parameters for acceptance of articles. If it were accepted in more university and college libraries that would help. Looking at the dearth of reliable sources, and the small number of college libraries that carry this publication, I don't see where this journal has any real impact on scholarship. Furthermore, based on the irregular frequency of publication, I might infer that even the University of Pittsburgh, or its departments, which produce the journal, do not consider this a noteworthy publication. It is almost as if, every now and then, someone comes along who has the inclination, or resolve, to finally publish an issue of the journal. Then two more years might pass before another issue is produced. I have no reason to believe that the University of Pittsburgh percieves this publication as more important than a homework assigment. And I do apologize if this kind of assessment "sounds" too harsh. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 11:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep or Merge A quick search shows that it is available in the catalogues of at least a half dozen libraries, including in Toronto and the National Library of Australia. Seems to have a diverse readership. May have a larger base offline. Ng.j (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You can check library holdings in WorldCat, but they seem to be way below what we usually take to indicate notability in these AfD debates. --Crusio (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2010 (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.