Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable journal. Article dePRODded by article creator who notes on the talk page that the journal is included in Ulrichsweb (which strives for all inclusiveness) and that EBSCO has expressed interest (without any evidence for this and, in any case, EBSCO is not very selective either). It is also mentioned that a distinguished person has authored an article in this journal, which is equally irrelevant (WP:NOTINHERITED). There is an unsourced claim that the journal's topic is unique, but that is not a valid claim for notability either. PROD reason still stands: Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't plan to do any more work to combat Wikipedia vandalism. (Jimmaths (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC))
 * Weak keep -- I think the attitude being taken to peer-reviewed academic journals is too strong. This usual problem is finding any independent (3rd party) sources on it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment So what policy-based reason do you have for keeping this? No sources, nothing... --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete No selective indexing whatsoever, no coverage in source, completely unnotable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, the thing we look for in this case is sources that discuss a journal itself, in order to determine what is notable and what is not. Full completeness of all published journals is not and should not be a goal of this project.  In this particular example, it's easy to find brief mentions of it, a handful of citations to it, and some credible scholars publishing in it, but nothing at all about it.  Should be deleted but can easily be recreated if it does become more notable.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC).
 * delete fails WP:GNG. and no selective indexing. LibStar (talk) 09:10, 1 April 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.