Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young scientists online journal


 * 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. Two arguments for the sake of keeping, one is that it might become notable in the future, and wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. The other is that it would get more google hits if google crawled their website. That still won't add a single relevant mention about it in third party sources. - Bobet 11:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Young scientists online journal
Non-noteworthy online journal. Only one issue published to date. Does not meet WP:WEB, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prod was removed by anon without comment. Shimeru 19:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a shame, it looks pretty well-written, but two Google hits pretty much tells the story. Dylan 20:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks nice disguised under Wikipedia format, but it's simply not notable as proven by Google.-- Hús  ö  nd  21:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like a well-meaning publication, but there simply is insufficient independent evidence to establish notablility.-- danntm T C 22:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I suggest that this article is so well written it deserves to be kept for a few months at least to see if it gains more notability. I suspect it will. At least move it to a user area so it is not completely lost. --Bduke 23:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that it's very nicely written, even if it is by those associated with the project. I hope it does become more noteworthy -- I just don't think it's there yet.  Userfying would be a fine way to retain it against that future possibility. Shimeru 08:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I disagree with Bduke's standard for retention. If it will be notable later, then write the article, or submit it, WHEN it is notable.  There is lots of work on notable articles that needs doing now.  We are not here to forecast the future.  I like well-written material, but that in and of itself is not a retention reason, notability is.  Bejnar 16:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As one of the people associated with the website I am a bit bias but I would like to explain. Several people have been commenting on that fact that the journal is not significant because of its hit count on Google. This is due to a technical problem on our website, which means Google was unable to crawl our site beyond the homepage. This problem has now been fixed and when Google next crawled the website, it will be updated. Interims of its reputability, it is growing quickly and I would ask if it could at least stay for a couple of months until the next issue is published and a decision could be made then.
 * Delete per nom. Come back again next year if the situation changes, wiki is WP:NOT for something made up in school ;-). Right now, I would not consider even a merger to The King's School, Canterbury. Ohconfucius 10:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a well written article, and although it is not prevelent on Google right now, who knows what the future might entail. I think that this article should be kept for at least several more months before we can be sure that it will never be notable because maybe it might take off soon.  N4nojohn  23:04, 25 October 2006 (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.