Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Astronomical Review (2nd nomination)


 * 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. --MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Astronomical Review
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

First AFD was closed as "no consensus" back in 2012, but there is no improvement in notability. Not indexed in any selective databases. The only third party source is from the SETI Institute, of which this journal is a fund raising partner. While the SETI Institute certainly is notable, notability is not inherited and the coverage on the SETI website is certainly not in depth. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I concur that there seems to be no external evidence that this journal is notable.PianoDan (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge to SETI_Institute. Papers in GS were either not cited at all, or cited by 1 or 2 papers at arxiv.org. Doesn't seem to be influential. But the tieup with SETI is a funding source for both, so it could be mentioned there. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not unsympathetic towards a merge if there's a suitable target. But I don't really see how to merge this to SETI_Institute#Funding_supporters, beyond mentioning the journal's name there. We can hardly start describing all SETI supporters in that section, can we? --Randykitty (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – That's all I had in mind. It is mentioned on SETI's site, but then so is My Broker Donates. If it seems out of place in the funding paragraph then I would be OK with delete. It looks like only five articles on WP link to Astronomical Review. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – On second thought, the only reason to leave a redirect is to provide information about the journal to readers who click the link, so it doesn't make sense to send them to SETI. Another possibility would be to redirect to List of astronomy journals. But with a few exceptions the policy in "List of XXX journals" articles seems to be WP:RTAF. So I guess that leaves delete. If needed an external link can be added to Roger Penrose, who is on the editorial board. The other three cites are in footnotes. Those can be left, or unlinked if we don't want to invite editors to recreate it immediately. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2015 (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.