Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantius (journal)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 November 15.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantius (journal)

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

Non-notable journal. Apparently, this is a newsletter of an Italian research group. Article was re-created after expired prod, the only improvements being addition of the ISSN and a list of the 6 universities to which the researchers of this group belong. According to its web site, "Its first aim is to document the activities of the Group". According to WorldCat, the journal is not held by any Italian library, although that may be an underestimate (I would expect it at least to be in the libraries of the 6 universities from which researchers participate in this group), but in any case there is no evidence that this is widely held or even listed in library catalogs. No information on abstracting or indexing is given on the journal's site, so it is highly likely that it is not indexed anywhere. Google gives three hits for the English title (and 9 without parentheses) and 69 for the Italian title (omitting parentheses), none of them suggesting notability. Google Scholar gives no better results. This misses all criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (Academic Journals), hence delete. Crusio (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. --Crusio (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - non-notable newsletter (not a journal, despite the claims in the title and body of the article - read their own website !), published in Italian language. Might be notable for Italian wikipedia, but not here. Materialscientist (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment worldCat does not presently list any italian libraries, as far as I can tell. the language of a journal is irrelevant to notability in the enWP, If its notable in Italy, it's notable enough to be covered here--although the different WPs have somewhat different standards of inclusion. the enWP covers the world, English speaking and non english speaking just the same. the only distinction is that it is written in English. To the extent it preferentially covers English-language subjects, or English-speaking countries, it's a fault that needs correction, known as WP:Systematic bias DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG. I did not take this to AfD because ot this being Italian. But if you read their website (I speak French and can decipher Italian somewhat), you will see it is just a newsletter and as far as I can see not peer-reviewed. As for being notable within Italy, surely it is similar there as here in France: to be notable locally, the newsletter/journal would have to be indexed somewhere. Again, as far as I can see, this is not the case. Also, my Google search were not language limited and several of the Ghits are to Italian sites. None of them seem to confer any notability and not even the number of Ghits (a shaky argument in the best of cases) provides any indication that this might be notable I did not know that WorldCat does not cover Italian libraries (I already mentioned above that I thought the score of 0 was unlikely to be correct). Is there an Italian alternative? --Crusio (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick glance at WP:SJ, I suppose the question is whether it's peer reviewed (and some confirmation of that would help, but I agree with Crusio that we should assume it's not unless there's evidence it is).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Crusio's work. A lack of peer review makes this into a nn-newsletter. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:56, 10 October 2009 (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.