Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sceptic - journal published by University of London 1958


 * 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. Valley2 city ‽ 07:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic - journal published by University of London 1958

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A journal with only 2 volumes released. Fails WP:BK. Different google searches don't return anything. ,, , etc. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 16:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Sometimes there may be a case to keep an article on a little known journal. But this one hangs by a thread, and with no reliable sources, what can we do? Having the name 'sceptic' which gets a zillion unrelated Google hits suggests that finding any real sources may be nigh impossible. How can we know for sure that this journal ever existed? Google does know something about Wen Su-Tung but this does not lead us any closer to actual information on the journal. I did not find any library holdings of this journal in worldcat.org. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. By own admission about as non-notable as you can get. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Whilst the article as it stands doesn't appear to be a notable subject, AfD'ing anything on the day it's first day it's created is a dubious practice. If it's so urgent and nasty that we have to shoot it on sight (WP:BLP or something) then we have WP:CSDs for doing that. This article hurts nothing, and maybe the creator has some vast new content yet to add. Nothing is served by this hurry, and it alienates new editors. If it doesn't improve after a week, then AfD it, but otherwise what's the hurry? We don't get to score ourselves for each scalp we hunt down and kill, we certainly don't aid the project by WP:BITEing new article creators. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I had originally tagged it with a CSD, but was told (see edit summary) to either prod it or bring it here. I chose the option I'm more comfortable with. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The quirk of the deletion policy that requires books to go through AfD rather than speedy puts us here. The creator of this article has been notified of the AfD, but he has only made four Wikipedia edits in the last two years. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've run into this problem before. I wish this problem would be brought up somewhere. :P Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD would have been even worse, not better. Please read my comment more carefully. For that matter, book articles can still be speedy'ed if there's an urgent reason to do so (e.g. WP:BLP issues). The WP:CSD exception for books is only there on the topic of assuming notability (as does indeed apply here).
 * If the article creator has only made four edits, do you think this approach encourages them to make a fifth? The purpose of AfD is not to alienate new editors, just because an established wikilawyer finds themselves in a position where they're permitted to do so. Articles are important, but so are editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If the author is going to add meaningful content to assert the notability, then s/he has received notice of the AfD and would be prompted to do so. The editor has made 4 edits in total, few and far between. I would hesitate to say I was biting a new editor by nominating this for AfD. The subject is, far as this discussion can tell, non-notable, which means it's either deleted now, or later when the same conclusion is found. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 14:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The journal Sceptic did in fact exist, as it is listed in the catalogs of the University of London's own Senate House Library and Oxford University's Bodleian Library. But, still, it only lasted two issues, and no sources have been provided to indicate that any publications more notable than itself ever took note of it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't need another pointless list. 71.3.53.121 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)User:71.3.53.121 made 19 WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:JNN AfD recommendations in less than 30 minutes after being templated as a single-purpose account on WP:Articles for deletion/Chain smoking — Rankiri (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't seem notable enough for its own entry; not notable (or sourced enough) to even merge to, say, History of University College London (I'm thinking it was UCL, not University of London). Disembrangler (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2009 (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.