Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anuario Filosófico

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 Speedy Keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 21:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anuario Filosófico[edit]

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

Article based on primary sources of a non-notable review. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —innotata 20:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —innotata 20:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is indexed in the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and that is produced by Thomson Reuters, like the Social Sciences Citation Index, which is listed under WP:NJOURNALS criterion 1. I'm not completely sure though, so, @Randykitty:, could I ask what your opinion is as to whether the databases listed at this link satisty WP:NJOURNALS? Jinkinson talk to me 20:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sjeez, what a bad article. I have cleaned it up and removed unsourced/promotional stuff. However, Jinkinson is absolutely right: being abstracted and indexed in the Arts & Humanities Citation Index fully satisfies NJOURNALS. So does listing in Scopus. I have added references for this to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the edits of Randykitty now the article is a new one. Therefore I withdraw the nomination. Thanks and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2014 (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.