Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndraStra Global

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. So Why 17:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IndraStra Global

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

Fails WP:WEB, WP:GNG. Most of the sources are articles written by people associated with the journal, and none of the sources speak about IndraStra. Rentier (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems to be trying hard to make a case for notability by association but provides among its many non-sources none of the reliable in-depth independent sources required by WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep. Multiple government/academic source based citations, university repository submissions and also, the subject has Authority control numbers. But, Can we count on Google Scholar indexing as a notability factor? I don't think so if we take WP:ACADEMIC as a reference. — Mirandajoseph01 (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There simply isn't nearly enough coverage in secondary sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. See also WP:NOTINHERITED, which should clear up any doubt with regards to the journal's prominent contributors. Rentier (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 20:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable academic publication with participation from many cited scholars over a sustained period of time. Sagecandor (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and David Eppstein. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. In addition, I fail to say why having authority control numbers would confer any notability. Those confirm that the publication exists, nothing else. --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous editors, the subject often cites content created by it's own contributors. IndraStra Global could probably be cited, but at the moment the inclusion of an article concerning the company does not further the goals of the encyclopedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with reference to Randykitty's statement - Agreed! Publications supported Authority control like ISSN and OCLC Control Numbers doesnt confer notability. But, How are VIAF and ISNI numbers being assigned to an organization/institution/person/? Based on Notability? or is it just as easy to get? — Mirandajoseph01 (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Far as I know, it's basically automatic. You publish something and it gets you an ISNI/VIAF automatically. If their bots don't find you on the web, you can obtain one on request. Not selective at all, no relation with notability. --Randykitty (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2017 (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.