Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RIHA Journal

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. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RIHA Journal

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

Relatively new journal, no independent sources, not included in any selective major databases. DePRODded with the argument that it is supported by several important institutes, but notability is not inherited. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 16:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article for online-only collaborative publication between several dozen art history organizations. The fact of all these organizations makes general web and Gscholar searches a nuisance, as most hits appear to be primary to one of the organizations, or trivial mentions. The most interesting Gscholar hit is to a research article Prospects and challenges of international E-Publishing Projects – The example of RIHA Journal, which provides explanations for the journal's lack of success. Zero Gnews hits, but it was only founded in 2010, so perhaps it will become notable in time. Fails WP:GNG right now. Happy to have another look if substantial refs from WP:RS's can be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both WP:TOOSOON and Hobbes Goodyear. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:29, 23 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.