Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Study and Scrutiny: Research on Young Adult Literature

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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Study and Scrutiny: Research on Young Adult Literature

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

Open-access journal that only started publishing in the summer of 2015. Too soon: I don't think this could meet notability requirements yet, and article is rather promotional in tone. As far as I can tell, it fails both WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find where this journal has been covered anywhere, nor does it appear to be indexed in any of the major places. I tried pulling it up in Ulrichsweb and found nothing. It looks like it exists, but hasn't really gained any sort of true attention anywhere. It's also incredibly promotional, enough to where I'd have speedied this as sheer unambiguous promotion if you'd nominated it. It's definitely an interesting theme for a journal and I hope it does well, but right now it just isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the entry to make it 'just the facts'. The journal IS new, and I am just trying to give it additional exposure. I've also linked it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_access_journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupp9772 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A new journal isn't going to be notable enough, fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL. Wait until when/if reliable sources start mentioning the journal, then maybe write an article about it. Also, @Rupp9772:, "I am just trying to give it additional exposure" is not a reason to keep the article, in fact it's actually a reason to delete it, as Wikipedia is not a place to advertise/promote yourself or your products/books/journals. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator, WP:TOOSOON. As of now, it fails WP:JOURNALCRIT. There's no evidence that it's influential in its subject area, and it's too new to be "frequently cited" or be historic in any sense. Deleting it now doesn't mean that an article about the journal can't be created later; if it eventually is listed in major indices and databases and/or comes to be frequently cited, it will probably meet WP:JOURNAL. TallCorgi (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2015 (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.