Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ars Disputandi (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ars Disputandi

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

Online journal lacking the multiple, independent and non-trivial coverage necessary to demonstrate enough notability to have a Wikipedia article to itself. Previous deletion discussion focused on arguments that do not follow actual Wikipedia policy or notability standards... the only argument that at least tried to follow them claimed there were enough sources but then cited things that absolutely do not count under WP:RS rules. DreamGuy (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments at last AfD - peer-reviewed academic journal published by a university press yielding 395 WorldCat hits (apparently up from 370 last time) = a clear pass of Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), Criterion #1. I'm not sure why the nominator expects the consensus to change. St Anselm (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As explained in the previous AfD, I disagree with St. Anselm's rationale. However, the journal is included in the major selective database in the field, ATLA, which is a keep under WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has changed since the last recent AfD discussion. The journal is in ATLA, which as noted by Randykitty, satisfies notability criteria under WP:NJournals. --Mark viking (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indexed by PhilPapers [1] and Philosopher's Index [2], the two most important indices for philosophy, so keep per WP:NJournals as Randykitty says. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 13:04, 3 December 2013 (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.