Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory in Action

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. All comment relating to the neutrality or lack thereof were discounted as that is an editing issue and not pertinent to a deletion debate. The issue of how many libraries it is in seems to have been refuted as not necessarily indicating notability. Therefore it seems consensus favors he idea that at this time this subject is not sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia entry. Willing to userfy if requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theory in Action

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

Appears to fail the WP:GNG. There have been determined efforts to promote the topic, onwiki and offwiki, so it's easy to find ghits - but there's a severe shortage of substantial coverage by independent sources. Article was created by one of the SPAs from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformative Studies Institute; a different one removed the PROD that I placed recently. bobrayner (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why deleting it when it only describes a journal without referring or making judgements about any other thing. It is an informative entry, it adds information to the web and harms nobody, I think that is what Wikipedia is, or should be, about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.236.99 (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NJ notes "For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries", and this journal has a cited claim about "it is available in over 220 academic libraries worldwide". The publisher and editor seem notable. I don't see this as self-promotional, seems like a neutral entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not a pro wiki editor but believe this is a legitimate entry as a Marxist academic journal, names involved are a who’s who of the Left. It has coverage e.g., listed on the Alternative Press Index, listed by Worldcat as available globally in 220 libraries. Examples of coverage/reference by other independent institutions/sources:http://www2.myacpa.org/social-newsletter/past-newsletters/1965-fall-a-winter-2010-2, http://www.unav.es/adi/UserFiles/CvFiles/Files/17417/Social%20model.pdf , http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/yma03/files/Theory%20in%20Action%20V2%20N2.pdf, http://www.projectcensored.org/about/partners/Robdirect75 (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Theory in Action (TIA) is a legitimate academic/activist publication that is accessible online, and also in hundreds of libraries worldwide. Not every publication garners 'substantial coverage by independent sources', because most publications are not objects of study unto themselves (i.e. the basis for an article, or the subject of an interview). There is no false information presented in the entry, and TIA is not some newsletter printed & distributed in a grocery store parking lot somewhere in Topeka, KS; it is a journal that is edited by, published by, and features the work of, other respected college professors & activists (radical as some of them might be). I can find no grounds for deletion based on Wikipedia's standards, as well as my own judgement as a full-time college professor, published author, and co-editor of the oldest continuously running publication on the Internet (Bad Subjects). User:Speckdog 10:31 EST, 30 September 2012.
Delete Article creation seems premature. Most of the above arguments come down to "WP:ILIKEIT", with the exception of the argument about library holdings. However, part of these holdings will be through general access services like EBSCO (meaning a library did not really decide to subscribe to the journal, but just lists it because it gets it as part of a package deal), so I'd like to see a bit more solid evidence for notability than that. If the journal is as good as people here claim, it will soon garner either independent sources or be included in reputable selective databases. At the moment, though, we cannot say. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.