Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory and Event


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Theory and Event

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although published by a reputed university press, I cannot find anything that supports notability: not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. is an independent source but it mentions it only trivially, in a listing of a recent "explosion in political theory journal titles". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Another non-detailed and unselective listing: the Australian Political Science Association ranks it as "B class", which means above the median but not top 20%, among the 606 political science journals they ranked in 2016 . Although labeled as an online or electronic journal, this one is perhaps unusual among that class of journals as it is not open access; see (mostly about a different journal) where this issue comes up. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, it easily meets my Trap Adventure 2 test. Used as a reference in Reading Ranciere: Critical Dissensus, Handbook of Political Theory, Kierkegaard and Political Theory and others. - Alexis Jazz 19:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Bravo, you found me here from Commons. I don't know why you think that a Pokémon test applies here, but WP clearly does things differently than Commons (as you so kindly explained to me over there). Here, a handful of citations, which are to be expected, are not enough to establish notability. Please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG (or, for an easier way for journals to become notable, WP:NJournals). --Randykitty (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. After some searching (see above) I found too little sourcing that I could use to say anything about it beyond it being a middle-of-the-road political science journal. A comment at an online forum  that it's "Only for Straussian-friendly (RoP) or continental/pomo stuff" was intriguing, but not a reliable source, and still not enough to say anything that would make it stand out among journals. So it doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG (the sources we have are not in-depth), and it also doesn't appear to pass WP:NJournals (we don't have evidence that it is particularly influential, well-cited, or historically significant). GNG gives a clearer reason for why we are unable to cover this topic, but NJournals tells us that it will not do much harm to the encyclopedia to omit it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Merely having published things that other publications have cited is not, by itself, enough to make the journal notable. We need to have sources talking about the journal itself &mdash; why it was founded, etc. I'd support redirecting it to Johns Hopkins University Press and giving it a sentence or two there if some more sources turned up. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2019 (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.