Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Logic and Analysis

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 merge to Association for Symbolic Logic. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Logic and Analysis

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

Self-published new journal, not yet notable: no third party sources, apparently not indexed anywhere. Article deprodded with reason "i do "otherwise" object. I would hope that any journal published by the ASL would qualify as notable". Indeed, the journal's only claim to notability is being sponsored (not published) by the Association for Symbolic Logic. Sponsorship apparently intended to increase visibility for new journals. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Let me say up front that I do not think holding academic journals to the same standard of notability as other articles is smart AT ALL. We should be endeavoring to compile information on ANY journal which may be used as a source within WP. However, with that policy position stated, I still think within our current guidelines we have a keeper based on its affiliation with ASL. They're not exactly a 'journal mill' you know. Greg Bard (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Personally, I don't keep journals up to the same standards as other subjects at all, I use WP:NJournals. However, many editors find that essay too lax, so I cite WP:GNG when prodding or taking an article to AfD. If I were to take GNG as sole guideline, there would probably be a couple of hundred journal articles that would qualify... The current example, though, fails all possible criteria of notability. It's "affiliation" with ASL does not appear to be more than a simple endorsement. It is not published by ASL, nor does ASL have any influence on the journal's editorial policy, etc. --Crusio (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, otherwise Merge to Association_for_Symbolic_Logic in section "Publications" but note that this journal is sponsored by, not published by ASL. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Philogo (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would you mind explaining your reasoning? Note that closing admins often ignore !votes without an explanation of why the editor !voted one way or another. --Crusio (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because of the Association Of Symbolic Logic's announcement at http://www.aslonline.org/asl_announcements.php#11. --Philogo (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't give the closing administrator any clue as to what you mean by "oppose", be it keep or delete. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands for how to express yourself clearly in AFD discussions. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Keep: I opposed the proposed deletion of the articlePhilogo (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Association for Symbolic Logic. It is clearly not yet notable, being so new. Because we have not developed specific criteria (such as a rule or guideline) for academic journals, we must rely on the general guideline. Wikipedia is only supposed to report what is already notable, not what ought to be notable. There are a few exceptions of people or places that are pre se notable, but I know of no regular contributor who advocates having an article for every journal. The parent organization meets our notability rules for organizations, so I think we should merge it back there for now. If you can convince me that WP:WEB applies, please make your argument now. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In fact, I don't think this should be merged atb all, as the "parent organization" is not the parent. All the AfSL has done is pronouncing their support for this journal, nothing less, but also nothing more. The AoSL is not the publisher of this journal and as far as I can see, there are no administrative/institutional or other links between the journal and the society. --Crusio (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the association, saying that it is they who sponsor it, not publish it. Add a redirect for the earlier Springer title also, Logic and Analysis, of which this is the successor (I added that information to the article). Neither of the two are independently notable, but this preserves the information. (The Springer journal seems to have had only 92 holding libraries listed in WorldCat) Although not formalized as a guideline, we do have good criteria for academic journals, and they can be seen in previous decisions here, which have been remarkably consistent in the last few years--as compared to almost every other class of article; that's because almost everyone particularly concerned with them here agrees about the basics, and it's rare they attract much interest here otherwise. . There is an alternative view, which is that we should make articles for every one of them, in order to help the readers. This does seem a possible alternative to me, but that would be such a major change in the application of the general concept of notability that I think it would be better discussed in the context of our coordination with a general bibliographic resource. I don't actually want to oppose Greg Bard's view about this, but it would need further discussion--this AfD is not the place to make such a change, and I think the discussion could be held more usefully about a year from now, where the outside resources such as Open Library will be further developed. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 4 December 2010 (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.