Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhiloSOPHIA

PhiloSOPHIA

PhiloSOPHIA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD'ed once before; this publication does not appear to have received significant coverage in independent sources, including academic citations. There's lots of sources written by the editors themselves, their own institutions, and their publishers, but none of that meets WP:GNG. —swpb^T 19:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 19:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 19:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Swpb prodded this last year and has now nominated it for deletion 40 minutes after I recreated it. We host articles on dozens of academic philosophy journals that no one writes about, but which are nevertheless well-known within the niche they serve. PhiloSOPHIA covers feminism and continental philosophy, and is one of a very small number of peer-reviewed feminist journals devoted to philosophy. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  Ah, but is it notable? Oh, did I misunderstand you? We have encyclopedia articles, but we are not a webhost.Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment there is WP:NJOURNAL which is the relevant test here, not WP:GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NJOURNAL is an essay; WP:GNG a guideline. Hmlarson (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the nature of an academic journal means that finding a verifiable citation isn't enough; papers are cited all the time. Having press coverage of an article in the journal isn't useful either. Expecting the general public to be aware of it is an absurd threshold. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I don't have any academic access to journals to see the context of any of the citations, but Google Scholar results show that multiple pieces published have >10 citations in other journals, which should be enough to justify keeping the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment there's also Philosophia (journal). I can't determine for certain which journal a paper was in without access, so I strike my vote. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets WP:JOURNALCRIT 1 and WP:GNG. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I note for the record that WP:JOURNALCRIT and WP:NJOURNAL redirect to the exact same page. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:JOURNALCRIT is a specific section outlining criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Question - should this be renamed to its full name PhiloSOPHIA: A Journal of Continental Feminism per Google Scholar results? (similar to Hypatia --> Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy) Hmlarson (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: Clearly meets GNG and there's enough even for NJOURNAL. But NJOURNAL is a SNG to assist non-experts in assessing notability of something in that area solely, it is not a bar to GNG where additional coverage can assist in boosting a case that's on the line over the top. I take no position on the move for now, but that's an issue for when this AfD closes. Montanabw^(talk) 05:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: Sufficient evidence of notability, meets the requirements of GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what exactly makes people think this is notable here. It doesn't seem to be cited very often, and here is only one source discussing the journal itself (Hypathia). I'll note that it's indexed in the Emerging Sources Citation Index, which isn't very selective, and the MLA Database, which I have no idea on its selectiveness. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb, please stop removing the advisory board. This is a small feminist-philosophy journal, founded in 2011, and the advisory board is likely to be significantly more involved than in a more established journal. The page you keep citing is just an essay. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: this is really out of order. Removed three times, including since I asked it to stop. [1][2][3] SarahSV ^(talk) 01:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The advisory/editorial board is inconsequential and plays very little role in the day-to-day operations of a journal, and for this reason we do not include it in articles unless the composition of the advisory is somehow notable/discussed in independent WP:RS. There's no reason to deviate from standard practices, even if the journal is "small" or on "feminist philosophy", and there's no reason to treat it any differently than if it were a medium-sized journal of Polish history. See WP:JWG for details. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Then I'll ask you to stop yourself, and use the talk page to make a case for why we need to deviate from normal practices. The argument that the journal is small and on feminist philosophy won't do much to convince people that this is a special snowflake journal that needs to be treated differently than others. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)