Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocznik Przekładoznawczy


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Rocznik Przekładoznawczy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent sources, not indexed in any selective databases. Tagged for notability since November last year. No indication that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete — I didn't get anything out of going through WP:BEFORE with this "yearly magazine." I agree WP:NJOURNAL and WP:GNG are far away. I'll watch for other comments in case reliable sources in relevant academic fields are found. JFHJr (㊟) 02:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Couldn't find anything to prove notability, other than the fact the work is often mentioned on the Polish Internet. The mentions are primarily citations, so the work is relatively well cited, but... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Needs some detective work. That's all. Just added an extra independent source. Poeticbent talk 19:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And on what findings did you base that conclusion? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Look again. Poeticbent talk 00:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I did look again. I see a brief abstract on an issue, but nothing worth basing a "strong keep" (or even a "keep") on. Could you perhaps explain your thinking here? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm just not seeing enough out there, even in Polish-language sources. WP:NJOURNAL is the controlling standard here, and I don't see any way to satisfy any of the criteria.  Criterion 3 is clearly out.  Except for a handful of citations to other low-yield journals and one arXiV preprint, I don't see anything to even start in the direction of criterion 2.  So that leaves us with attempting to gauge the influence of this journal.  As far as I can tell, it has never had a published impact factor. Worldcat has three listings for it, but has only 10 library collections worldwide carrying this journal between them.  Other indexes return no results.  I feel confident that the minimal impact of this journal falls below the intended benchmark of NJOURNAL criterion 1. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2012 (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.