Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uscientia


 * 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 06:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Uscientia

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

A non-notable school journal. It claims to be the first of its kind (I guess that's a claim of importance), but it only gets 9 g-hits once you take out Wikipedia and the domain name was only registered in August 2008. It borders on speedyable, but the prod was removed by an admin so I have brought it here. --B (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is information in university's intranet that exerts the notability. It is endorsed by student council and the university itself. I'm not surprised to see the low number of Google hits. It's done intentionally because the school wants to reduce the bots crawling through the servers (especially intranet) for security purposes. If you want the intranet link and the information on that page, I can provide those information through email requests. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing on your school's network would qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --B (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete If, in fact, it's the first such journal, a mention on the Peer review page would be appropriate, but firsts generally take time to prove. Just as this journal has information on the university's private intranet, other universities may have similar information and some other journal might be first. Until/unless the first claim can be proven or the journal becomes notable for other reasons: Delete. RoyLeban (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete POV, original research, non-notable.... Maybe it deserves a mention in another article, so perhaps some of the information could be merged to where it is relevant? --Pstanton 07:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
 * Good point, I'll merge the info into the campus' article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to make my position a bit more clear (in case anyone is wondering where I stand), I am going for a keep and if it does get deleted, then merge OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete undergraduate project, unimportant anywhere outside the college. According to their website, they have not yet published a single regular issue, just a "sample issue" Even if they were an established regular publisher, a magazine that had not yet actually started publishing is very unlikely to be at all notable. DGG (talk) 01:26, 27 January 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.