Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheoretiCS

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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, you can contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheoretiCS

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG". Article dePRODded with reason " I don't know this journal well enough to be sure it will survive AfD but it shows every signs of being a serious journal with two editors who seem to clearly satisfy notability guidelines. Needs better sources but PROD doesn't allow enough consideration of this." PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Computing. Randykitty (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep As yet, this fails WP:V / WP:RS. Accordingly it would be a target for deletion. However I'm not going to !vote delete on something for that reason when it's barely a week since it was created.

If this can be sourced, we should keep it. It's a few years old, it should be possible. If it doesn't get sourced, I can't strongly object to those deleting it for that reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Andy, for academic journals it's actually pretty simple: only rarely do there exist reliable sources independent of the journal or its publisher that discuss a journal in depth. What remains is WP:NJournals. While not everybody agrees that meeting NJournals is enough to establish notability, everybody agrees that not meeting NJournals is a strong indicator of lacking notability. In the present case, a Google search does not render anything of interest (hence fails GNG), whereas MIAR indicates that this journal is only included in DOAJ, which does not do anything for notability, meaning that this also fails NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Disclaimer: I believe this is a good journal and have published in it.) At a recent scientific meeting it was announced that this journal would like both to be added to the standard scientific indexes and to Wikipedia. I responded that, for an article to stick, Wikipedia should wait at least until the indexing already happened. Obviously, someone else got the first message but not the second. WP:TOOSOON. We have no independent sourcing at all, not even indexing let alone sourcing that would pass WP:GNG, the controlling notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> Obviously, someone else got the first message but not the second.

[Page creator here] Just for the record, I have no affiliation or link whatsoever with the board of this journal. (In what context did the meeting you are mentioning take place?) Jean Abou Samra (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The public business meeting of the annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, in Kanazawa a month ago. I would guess that, if they made this sort of announcement there, they're likely to have done so elsewhere as well, such as maybe at STOC. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kanazawa got me wondering if it would have an conference paper or something published here [1], tried a few variations, no luck. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re indexing, FYI: https://dblp.org/streams/journals/theoretics --MRA (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there any article to which this could be merged/redirected? Overlay journal, perhaps (which looks like it could use a list of examples)? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify per David Eppstein. Suggestion: can't we create Episciences first? A topic that is worth covering. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(see fr:Episciences) Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't feel comfortable directly voting in this discussion because I was involved in running the journal some years ago. While it's true that the journal isn't currently indexed in Scopus and other databases, I was able to find some sources that talk about it, so I have added them to the article. I don't know whether they suffice for the journal to be notable -- three of them are announcements of the journal in various TCS venues by people involved with the journal, and otherwise there are independent conferences proceedings that mention the journal as a place where extended papers were invited. Again, I don't want to weigh in on the discussion of whether the page should be kept or not, but I thought I could bring up these citations -- I hope this isn't inappropriate! --a3nm (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems clear that we're not keeping the article. But is draftification a good WP:ATD or are we better off deleting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think the journal is still too new to have had much impact, I don't see anything in Scholar about it, or Gsearch. Not quite enough sourcing found... I'm not sure drafting it would help, I don't see much of anyting about this journal. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2025 (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.