Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music Theory Spectrum
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. Carlossuarez46 03:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Music Theory Spectrum
An article about a journal with no claims of notability. There isn't even an article about the organization whose journal this is. My speedy tag was removed. Corvus cornix 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep it's a totally valid academic journal stub. The most drastic action against this article that I could recommend is merging into a University of California journals article (or section within University of California Press) to cover the members of the previously existing Category:University of California journals Pete.Hurd 21:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Another long-standing academic journal (in Vol. 29), which seems to form a perfectly valid encyclopedia topic. As I said for Symbolic Interaction (journal), a major reason for including articles on source materials such as academic journals is to help readers in evaluating the validity of references to material published there, and this is defeated if only the most prestigious journals are permitted articles here. I don't support merging disparate journals onto the publisher page, as it makes them hard to categorise and search for; also the lists would quickly become unmanageable as big academic publishing houses publish hundreds. Espresso Addict 04:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I found and added to the article a source indicating that it's highly ranked in citations among music journals. The McGill University Library also calls it an important music theory journal. —David Eppstein 04:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:N unless reliable sources are provided that discuss the subject significantly, as opposed to a single source that mentions it in a list or survey. -- But|seriously|folks 06:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. That argument can be applied to almost all academic journals. Do you really think we should apply general-purpose notability standards to an important class of article that those standards are such a poor fit to? —David Eppstein 06:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- PS. I found one anyway, and added it to the article. But next you'll be telling me we need multiple such sources, I suppose... —David Eppstein 07:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- so they will, David-- people need to be reminded that the notability guidelines are guidelines--guidelines are meant to be applied with the appropropriate flexibility. Notability is a policy, but how it is determined depends on the nature of the article. But there are good independent sources for notability available for most titles. 1/ Journal Citation Reports is an very reliable source for notability within a subject field as measured by impact factor. Even inclusion of it is an indication that it is one of the top 8000 of the estimated 20 or 30 thousand academic journals. (unfortunately they do not cover the humanities) . 2/Ulrich's is an equally reliable source for how long the journal has been published and what indexes cover it, 2 other major factors in notability. 3/WorldCat is a RS for how many libraries hold a journal, another factor of notability. Though all of these are in a sense lists, the information they provide gives the notability.
- Keep in this case, a very important journal in the subject as shown by the multiple factors. One thing which is not a factor is whether the organisation has an article--most of the important academic societies do not yet have articles in WP. We need to write them. The absences of an article in WP is not evidence of non-notability--just of the shortage of WPedians working on these types of subjects. DGG (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep Music Theory Spectrum is actually relatively well known in academic circles. Also “no claims of notability” is not an appropriate criteria for deletion. --S.dedalus 04:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
*Keep per the current sources and indirect indications of notability. --Tikiwont 10:00, 3 October 2007 (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.
