Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanderbilt Historical Review


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Vanderbilt Historical Review

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation too soon." DePRODded by anonymous IP with reason "(I added a doi. The journal has been referenced by an art gallery in Argentina (http://proa.org/esp/exhibicion-kazimir-malevich-textos.php). Other pages exist for similar journals (Tufts Historical Review, Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal, Stance)". Having a DOI is standard for any journal (like having an ISSN) and has no bearing on notability. Whether proa.org is a reliable source I don't know, but in any case a translation of an article from this journal does hardly contribute to notability. That other pages exist for similar journals is probably true (I haven't looked at the journals mentioned), but either those have sufficient sources or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies. In short, PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I hardly believe selectivity is a requirement for a Wikipedia page. The purpose of history journals at the undergraduate level is to promote the study of research and spread awareness for such historical events and methodologies. Much like the Tufts Historical Review, Critique (journal), and the Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs, this journal helps to expand opportunities for learning. The Wikipedia page simply stands as a biography of what the journal is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historywriter23 (talk • contribs)
 * We do have to be selective in what we include in Wikipedia, . You can read our inclusion criteria for academic journals at WP:NJOURNALS. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Would this be a consideration?: "Many journals are non-notable by themselves, but are published by notable organizations. While a journal may not be worthy of having its own article, it can be helpful to include some information about the journal in the publisher's article. For instance the Nepali Mathematical Sciences Report is one of the publications of the Nepal Mathematical Society, and while the society is notable own its own, this journal is not. But since the journal is an important part of the society's activity, the article on the society should mention the journal." I think that this journal has significance for the history department at Vanderbilt (http://as.vanderbilt.edu/history/undergraduate/vhr.php)..
 * Merge and redirect to Vanderbilt University. As you'd expect with a recently founded undergrad journal, this doesn't independently meet WP:NJOURNAL. But per 's comment above, it's worth including a (greatly trimmed down) mention in the university's article. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, what if I create a department of history page and put it under its own heading? (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University_Department_of_History). I can trim it down as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historywriter23 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure that merging is a good idea. AT this point, this periodical has produced a grand total of 2 issues. Suppose it tanks after 4 issues, would we then still think that it would be worth while to devote a section of the article on the school/student life/department to it? Remember: we have no deadline. Some patience may be at its place here. If this still exists after a couple of years, it might either be notable enough for its own article or for a section elsewhere. But at this point, I don't think it is even certain yet that this will survive and merit any mention anywhere... --Randykitty (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The way these discussions work is that we wait a while (typically a week) for a consensus to emerge on what to do with the article, then they are formally closed by an administrator and we act on that decision – so it's best to hold off doing anything major (i.e. merging) until that happens. Having an article on individual university departments is the exception rather than the rule, so if you did want to create that article you would have to ensure there were sufficient sources that discuss the Vanderbilt history department specifically, and are independent of the university. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * delete fails both GNG and NJOURNAL; article is promotional, trying to use WP to give more gravitas to a startup journal. Jytdog (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * DElete (or merge) -- no doubt a journal with worthy intentions, but wholly NN. No objection to a brief addition to a some other article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Vanderbilt University per WP:TOOSOON; the journal is not yet notable per available sources. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. As a newly founded and undergraduate journal, this faces a very high bar for notability, and presents no evidence of passing it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge. Interesting articles. I imagine with the resources at Vanderbilt it will survive, but maybe too soon for WP with only 3 issues. I'd support merging, as it would be easy enough to edit Vanderbilt University if the journal fails. Jacknstock (talk) 22:56, 7 January 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.