Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingua ac Communitas
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 delete. Sandstein 14:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lingua ac Communitas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced 1x yearly journal. Declined PROD. Concern = Fails to meet criteria for notability at WP:NJOURNAL Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A very quick Google Scholar search found references to this journal in three other journals (Husserl Studies, Problems of Sustainable Development, and Problemy Ekorozwoju) plus a monograph and a dissertation. I suspect that a trip to the library would reveal sufficient citations to satisfy NJournals criteria 2, "The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources." Cnilep (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. My quick search did not reveal anything, but if those sources can be added, I'll withdraw this AfD and close it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the references mentioned by Cnilep have now been integrated. (talk) 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- The trip to the library was less easy than I expected: my university's library does not subscribe, and as far as I can tell the journal is not indexed in MLA, Ebsco, JSTOR, or Web of Knowledge. However, I did find the following articles citing other articles included in the journal. Like most of the citation I found, these are written in German or Polish.
- Greule, Albrecht. 1999. "Sprachloyalität – Sprachkultur – Sprachattraktivität. Warum noch Deutsch lernen?" Informationen Deutsch als Fremdsprache 5(26) 423-431. (cites Greule, Albrecht. 1992. Aufgaben und Probleme der modernen deutschen Sprachpflege)
- Eaniec, Wojciech. 2001. "Husserl bibliography." Husserl Studies 17(2). (cites Glombik, Czeslaw. 1999. Bronislaw Bandrowski i jego zwiazki z getyngeskim seminarium filozoficznym)
- Zieba, Włodzimierz. 2007. "Filozoficzno-aksjologiczne zaplecze ekorozwoju. Philosophical and axiological basis of ecodevelopment." Problemy Ekorozwoju 2(1) 19-25. (cites Rosenthal, S.B. (n.d.) Language and reality: The alien paths of classical pragmatism and Rorty)
- Cnilep (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately links or references to articles in the journal are not an assertion of its notability. The jounal either needs a high jounal ranking (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals), or articles published about it in the established press, and not being indexed in MLA, Ebsco, JSTOR, or Web of Knowledge gives me pause. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur; my findings are (contra my original expectation) not enough to satisfy NJournal. Cnilep (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately links or references to articles in the journal are not an assertion of its notability. The jounal either needs a high jounal ranking (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals), or articles published about it in the established press, and not being indexed in MLA, Ebsco, JSTOR, or Web of Knowledge gives me pause. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Husserl Studies and The New Synthese Historical Library (and possibly some of the other references too (I cannot assess that)) seem to me to meet the criterion. Universityuser (talk) 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It is often, unfortunately, difficult to establish notability for academic journals. This journal has been around for some time, but nevertheless, it does not seem to be included in any major selective database. That there are articles in other journals that cite articles from this journal is to be expected. That there apparently are only very, very few is more worrisome and shows a lack of notability. --Crusio (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of independent third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2011 (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.