Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acta Pintériana

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acta Pintériana

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Acta Pintériana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "I agree that the article has issues that can be addressed. I also freely admit that I do not read Hungarian. But by following the links provided in the article, I found back issues of this annual journal back to 2015. Numerous authors have spent many hours writing these articles. I am not a fan of WP:GNG - this article needs improvement, not deletion" (stated on article talk page). This is not a valid claim to notability either under GNG or under NJournals. PROD reson stands, hence; delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Journal has entries in international registers such as ISSN and WorldCat, which seems to cover inherited notability in WP:NJournals. There are 6 annual issues with what appears to be articles of academic interest in the subject matter. Without an ability to read Hungarian or properly search for further resources on Hungarian sites, I don’t believe that we have enough information to make a good call - hence I believe that we should err on the side of keeping the article in the interest of inclusivity. Most importantly, the article provides new data and enough information to do further reading and research - just what I want from an encyclopedia article. Thank you.--Concertmusic (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but you are misinterpreting NJournals. An ISSN is easy to obtain, you just have to file a request. Similarly, WorldCat is not selective either but strives to include everything that even a single library will hold. Publishing issues in and of itself doesn't confer notability either. If we don't have enough information to make a good call, that basically means that neither GNG nor NJournals are met. Sources in Hungarian are perfectly admissible, but as it stands we basically have only the information provided by the journal itself, which is not enough to base an article upon. --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to object to your statement of “ If we don't have enough information to make a good call, that basically means that neither GNG nor NJournals are met.” That appears to be leaning in the direction of deletionism. I would much rather have us adopt something more along the lines of “no harm, no foul” - and I don’t see the harm in keeping the article. I do appreciate the discussion-that was my point in deleting the PROD.--Concertmusic (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may call it "deletionism" if you like, but based on your reasoning here we should do away with AfD. Just G11 (speedy deletion off spam) would be enough. That's not what we do. Harmless or not, an article has to be based on independent reliable sources, which we don't have here. Your !vote is therefore not based in policy. The journal is still young, perhaps it will become notable over time, but I broke my crystal ball yesterday, so I can't give a firm prediction. ;-) --Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the honest and civil discourse. I also appreciate you basing your argument largely on NJournals and not on GNG, which I find to be poor policy. You mentioned policy - I am hopeful that policy, which is meant to be somewhat fluid, can in fact be updated to be more inclusive. I scanned 25 or so AfD discussions earlier, and every single one either was solely based on GNG or had it as a factor. Many of them had more Keeps than Deletes. GNG, or its proper application, needs some help - and if I can make a small difference there, I'll be happy. Thank you for your time!--Concertmusic (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs revision, but is an official publication of the Franciscan Order in Hungary, not some fly-by-night predatory journal. I think there's plenty of room here for the article to be expanded and improved. Korossyl (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was responding your comment about anything "calling itself a journal:" this is an official publication of a highly notable organization, so that right there indicates to me legitimate notability. NJournal is not Wikipedia policy, but GNG generally requires outside sources. A cursory Google search turned up at least one article announcing the journal's founding, which I've added to the intro paragraph.
The journal also has listings in databases much more selective than WorldCat or the ISSN catalogue -- the Hungarian Academy of Sciences [1], the Hungarian National Library [2], and Eötvös Loránd University [3]. Do you think it would it help to put these on the wiki page? Korossyl (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference that you added comes from the "Ferences Sajtóközpont" (translated: Franciscan Press Center), so is not independent. The "databases" that you list are library catalogs, which really is run-of-the-mill stuff for any academic journal. So none of that contributes to notability, I'm afraid. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would politely disagree. The text was written by the Franciscans, but it's appearing on an unaffiliated website; this is no different than publishing an organization's press release. The release itself is made by the organization, but it is an INDEPENDENT organization that deems it notable enough to publish. As for the catalogues, these are not automatically approved or updated -- listing in them indicates significance. But either way, all these sources are independent of the journal. 17:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Press releases, regardless where published, never contribute to notability. Similarly, a few library catalog entries are not an indication of any notability either. Have a look at the archives of journal-related AFDs (there are two archives, the second one is the most recent one) to see what historically has been used to show notability for journals. --Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Press releases do not indicate notability, but an article published by an independent source absolutely does -- even if it was written by an affiliated person, the fact that another site saw it as important enough to give space to is significant. As for cataloguing, I agree that it can very well be a matter-of-course, but these appearance in these catalogues is not automatic or guaranteed but rather the result of a vetting process. So, I again see this as being an indicator of the notability we're seeking. I'm keeping my vote to "keep." Korossyl (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Acta_Pintériana&oldid=993862258"