Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Diplomacy

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. Tone 11:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Diplomacy

[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 by SPA after adding promotional stuff (also likely copyvio). PROD reason stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The journal is abstracted and indexed in ProQuest Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, EBSCO databases, and Cengage/Gale. It is also in Library of Congress ISSN 1094-8120. Independently sourced and encyclopedia-based content, as noted above and edited by Randykitty, are in everyone's interest. On this basis, the proposal for deletion can be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akebedeb (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC) — Akebedeb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment None of the databases that you list are selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. And there is no information that is "independently sourced" or "encyclopedia-based", our only source is the journal itself. --Randykitty (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NJOURNALS is just an essay, but it fails it, and I couldn't find anything on WP:GNG either in terms of non-primary sources. SportingFlyer talk 04:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral fails a straightforward application of WP:NJOURNALS... but this seems more important than it appears from the article alone... Will need to look deeper.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have read the Wikipedia regulations and believe American Diplomacy meets the criteria for a notable journal in that the journal counts thousands of users and subscribers internationally (as demonstrated by Google Analytics). Other references would be to articles published in the journal vs. to the journal itself, as would generally be the case with scholarly journals. Grateful for any other guidance on this last point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RME 25 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"thousands of users and subscribers internationally (as demonstrated by Google Analytics)" This is irrelevant, especially in the case of open access journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NJOURNALS per SportingFlyer. I notice both keeps are SPAs. Ifnord (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2018 (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.