Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meeresforschung
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 keep.--Kubigula (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Meeresforschung
This was originally listed with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biometrics (Journal) which has closed as I withdrew the nom, however this journal still establishes zero notability, nor does a search in any language. This is nothing more than a directory listing. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No content in article worth keeping. Subject itself lacks notability. Dgf32 (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It was a peer-reviewed scientific journal that was published under this name for 18 years. In my opinion, that makes it inherently notable. It is hard to search correctly for scientific references to it, because its official abbreviation is Meeresforchung, which is a common word in German. However, even the combination Meeresforschung "Reports on marine research", which reaches libraries and databases that include the journal, scores 961 Google hits. --mglg(talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I added a third-party published reference from 1925 describing the early history of the journal. From Google translate, the first paragraph describes how it ceased operations during World War I but then resumed. But it would take someone who actually reads German to extract more useful information from it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The great majority of long-standing peer-reviewed academic journals are inherently notable as they publish research which is abstracted in indexes and cited in other research, and they are themselves archived in academic libraries. It's best, however, that a journal has only a single article with redirects for all name changes, but in this case the red-linked alternative titles do not yet exist. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and moved it to the current name of the journal. Probably best not to create too many redirects unless the AfD ends up a keep, though. I also cleaned up the text and got rid of several of the links that were labeled as sources, as they are not different than what you get anyway from the ISSN. We still need actual sources (primary, secondary, whatever) for most of the history; the only one I have is from very early. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good Idea if people look for this journal, it's far more likely they'd look under the current name rather than the 60s name and this way the re-direct will get them there if someone is pining for their old school days. I agree, we still need actual sources for notability and/or to establish some context TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I found several articles elsewhere in Wikipedia that cite this journal, under some of its names. So the present article serves an encyclopedic purpose in helping readers of those other articles verify the reliability of those citations, and helping them untangle the relationship between all these journal names. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good Idea if people look for this journal, it's far more likely they'd look under the current name rather than the 60s name and this way the re-direct will get them there if someone is pining for their old school days. I agree, we still need actual sources for notability and/or to establish some context TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and moved it to the current name of the journal. Probably best not to create too many redirects unless the AfD ends up a keep, though. I also cleaned up the text and got rid of several of the links that were labeled as sources, as they are not different than what you get anyway from the ISSN. We still need actual sources (primary, secondary, whatever) for most of the history; the only one I have is from very early. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I am persuaded by the arguments that peer-reviewed academic journals have inherent notability, particularly, as mglg, given a run of 18 years. I also take David Eppstein's point about the usefulness of the article in relation to serving WP:V in articles that cite to it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
