Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symbolic Interaction (journal)

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 03:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolic Interaction (journal)

Journal with no claims of notability. There is no article for the society whose journal this is. As usual, my db tag was removed by User:DGG Corvus cornix 20:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep it's a totally valid scientific journal stub. The most drastic action against this article that I could recommend is to merge into a University of California journals article, to cover the members of the previously existing Category:University of California journals Pete.Hurd 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long-standing academic journal (established 1977) which seems a perfectly valid topic for an encyclopedia article. 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 04:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a major social sciences journal, though a totally inadequate article as submitted. Included in all the standard specialty indexes, included in Web of science and Scopus. These are the standards for notability of journals. i filled in some of the details just now. Since some publishers publish as many as several thousand, the only practical way to handle them is individually the society might be notable also, but nobody has written the article yet. since we still do not have articles on the great majority of scientific societies, that's not a criterion for articles on their journals. DGG (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google finds plenty of Wikipedia articles relating to symbolic interaction, many of which cite this journal. In general I see having articles on journals like this one, that are significant within their field although not perhaps themselves the subject of nontrivial secondary sources, as a form of building the web: it connects subjects in the journal's field of study through its "what links here" lists, and it enables readers to verify the reliability of publications in that journal by finding out that it really is peer-reviewed, published by a respected academic press, etc. We shouldn't keep articles on every academic journal, but I think we should keep the ones that have significant numbers of citations within Wikipedia and for which there are secondary sources such as those described by DGG that indicate notability despite not really supplying nontrivial coverage. This journal passes that bar for me. —David Eppstein 22:11, 30 September 2007 (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.