Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stability: International Journal of Security and Development

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. J04n(talk page) 01:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stability: International Journal of Security and Development

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

Non-notable new journal established in 2012. Too young to have become notable yet. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Article creation vastly premature. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS. Randykitty (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable yet. Ray^Talk 12:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & WP:TOOSOON.--JayJasper (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In response: This journal is notable despite being young. Its editorial board includes senior policy-makers, and it is pioneering a new model of research which is much more closely engrained with governmental, multilateral and non-governmental entities. In addition to being open access -- making its peer-reviewed research available for free, nor charging authors to contribute -- the journal has a uniquely aggressive impact strategy. Hence, it is notable, and time should be allowed for Stability to be referenced more widely on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve.zyck (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you are confounding "notability" with "worthy" or "meriting". Notability has a very specific meaning on WP, see WP:N. If the journal is as worthy as you say, then I am sure that soon enough it will be included in major selective indexes and people may even write about it (i.e., "note" it). When that happens, we can have an article (and should have an article). But until then, this is too soon. Similarly, the people on the editorial board may be notable, but notability is not inherited, so that has no bearing on this discussion either. Meanwhile, I would caution you about "seeding" WP with references to your journal, because that may at some point become to be seen as spam and then the URL will be blacklisted. If the journal's articles are relevant, people will add them to articles here eventually. As for notability, whether or not WP links to the journal is absolutely irrelevant.--Randykitty (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, clearly much WP:TOOSOON. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find evidence of indexing in selective databases. It looks like a promising young journal and there has been some independent interest in its launch in the blogosphere, e.g., [1], but blogs are almost always not considered reliable sources, per WP:RS. This looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has passed for independent reliable sources to discuss this journal, and probably it is too soon for indexing as well. When coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and/or indexing in selective databases occur, it is reasonable to re-create this article. --Mark viking (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2013 (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.