Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mouseion

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 with a week offering no other comments, nac, SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mouseion[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded with reason "Should we tell the University of Toronto their renamed classics journal is now considered "non notable" by some Wkipedian?" PROD reason stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck "new", that was an obvious mistake, sorry about that. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which selective databases should a humanities journal be included in, in order to be notable, Randykitty? – Uanfala 09:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
University of Toronto Press: Mouseion speaks for itself. The title is new. A university journal of Classical studies naturally struggles to compete for notability at Wikipedia. Project MUSE itself might well be deleted: no loss. Wetman (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The journal page does not speak for itself. We need secondary assessments of notability. Listing is in more than in Project MUSE however [1] (Emerging Sources Citation Index, IBZ Online, International Bibliography of Social Sciences, L'Année philologique, Art Source, MLA - Modern Language Association Database). I also don't know where Randykitty gets the idea this is a new journal. It's a journal that dates back to 1956. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see the point in this request. An academic journal of long standing (irrespective of change of title) that might reasonably be cited in various scholarly works from the last sixty years and on into the future seems worthy of at least a stub article. Perhaps better sources should be found, or more details from independent sources, but those are issues separate from deletion. As long as the article is clearly not a hoax and the publication not utterly devoid of academic value, deletion seems unjustified. P Aculeius (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "As long as the article is clearly not a hoax and the publication not utterly devoid of academic value". I agree. Now please tell me how we are going to evaluate this without reliable sources? Our own opinions? --Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Find reliable sources. Don't delete just because you haven't found any yet. If it's a publication of the university, surely the university's own website verifies that it exists and what it is, and that's sufficiently independent of the journal itself, although the journal's self-description is perfectly appropriate for inclusion as a reliable, if primary source. If the journal is found in other academic libraries, that's reliable too. Try WorldCat to find out. I know citation to web sites is tricky, but at least those would prove the journal exists, what it's called, possibly what it used to be called, what its focus is, etc. It's just a stub article now, and it doesn't need to have encyclopedic information written about it in other sources in order to survive deletion. Nor is a deficiency in sourcing grounds for deletion, as long as that could reasonably be remedied. Many perfectly valid articles wait years for proper sourcing to be added; time is not really a factor. P Aculeius (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not one of WP:V, but one of WP:N. If no sources discuss it, it's not notable. @Randykitty:/@DGG: do the additional data put this in a pass for you? I'm not super familiar with them, but L'année philologique seems selective enough to me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not appropriate to delete something merely because somebody else hasn't supplied the sources. However, even a really quick search for classical journals revealed that Museion is listed in the Society for Classical Studies' "list of journals in Classics that have a substantial on-line presence. These journals are not published by the SCS, but represent the vitality and diversity of the classicist's disciplines in a new medium." That endorsement alone seems to satisfy criterion "1b" for notability of academic journals. I'm sure with just a little digging much more would be found. P Aculeius (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link for that? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go. I'm sure more than this could be found by making more than the very briefest search. P Aculeius (talk) 22:09, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mouseion&oldid=1138099298"