User talk:ReseARTch: Difference between revisions
Tag: speedy deletion template removed |
|||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 07:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC) |
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 07:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
I agree, I cannot find this journal indexed on any "selective" databases and therefore does not meet [[WP:NJournals]]. Although I do not believe any art journals would be featured in the databases proposed in [[WP:NJournals]]. I disagree that there are no "independent" sources cited, the [[Austrian Science Fund]], [[transmediale]] and [[ISEA]] are all reliable established independent sources that utilise rigorous peer review processes. However due to the newness of this journal I would also agree does not meet [[WP:GNG]] and therefore I agree with the proposed deletion.[[User:ReseARTch|ReseARTch]] ([[User talk:ReseARTch#top|talk]]) 13:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC) |
I agree, I cannot find this journal indexed on any "selective" databases and therefore does not meet [[WP:NJournals]]. Although I do not believe any art journals would be featured in the databases proposed in [[WP:NJournals]]. I disagree that there are no "independent" sources cited, the [[Austrian Science Fund]], [[transmediale]] and [[ISEA]] are all reliable established independent sources that utilise rigorous peer review processes. However due to the newness of this journal I would also agree does not meet [[WP:GNG]] and therefore I agree with the proposed deletion and would recommend [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]].[[User:ReseARTch|ReseARTch]] ([[User talk:ReseARTch#top|talk]]) 13:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:35, 18 September 2015
Welcome!
|
Proposed deletion of Journal for research cultures
The article Journal for research cultures has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree, I cannot find this journal indexed on any "selective" databases and therefore does not meet WP:NJournals. Although I do not believe any art journals would be featured in the databases proposed in WP:NJournals. I disagree that there are no "independent" sources cited, the Austrian Science Fund, transmediale and ISEA are all reliable established independent sources that utilise rigorous peer review processes. However due to the newness of this journal I would also agree does not meet WP:GNG and therefore I agree with the proposed deletion and would recommend speedy deletion.ReseARTch (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)