Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Families, Relationships and Societies

:{{la|Families, Relationships and Societies}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Families,_Relationships_and_Societies Stats])

:({{Find sources|Families, Relationships and Societies}})

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. It is the leading journal in the emerging field of families and interpersonal relationship studies, established by the internationally preeminent scholars in the field, including a former President of the British Sociological Association, and is published by one of the leading scholarly presses in sociology. What you call "selective databases" are far less important in European sociology and social science/humanities, we cannot judge a social science or humanities journal by natural scientific standards. Robert W.W. Zorg (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

:*Unfortunately, notability is not inherited. Perhaps the journal will become notable in the future, but right now it is too soon to tell. As for the remark you just added about "selective databases", there are many such databases specialized in the social sciences and humanities, that I am applying "natural scientific standards" is incorrect.--Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

::*The journal is regarded as the most prestigious journal in its field now. Actually, notability is quite frequently inherited. When a journal is established by a well-known scholarly press and by highly recognized scholars, it tends to get recognized faster than a journal published by an unknown press by unknown people. Just as Prince George of Cambridge was given a biography the day he was born. Robert W.W. Zorg (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

:::*Prince George had in-depth coverage in reliable sources even before he was born. If this journal is indeed regarded as "the most prestigious journal in its field", it should be easy to find sources that comment on this highly unusual (and highly unlikely) feat (given its newness). --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect Delete - can't see how this passes WP:GNG. That it was founded by well-known scholars in the field does not automatically confer notability. Stalwart111 15:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

:*Changed to redirect on the basis of subsequent discussion. Stalwart111 13:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep or Redirect This looks like a serious new journal with a solid editorial staff and board; but looks don't count toward notability, coverage in independent RS does. While there is some coverage on the blogs and announcements by university libraries that they are carrying it, none of these are both reliable and in depth, so the journal seems to fail WP:GNG. I suspect this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The journal is indexed in [http://www.scie-socialcareonline.org.uk/Content/files/currentjournalslist.pdf Social Care Online], a UK-based social science index. My inexpert opinion is that this index is at least somewhat selective; most of the journals on the list seem pretty established. On that basis, I would suggest keeping the article. But if I'm wrong, the existence of and basic facts about the journal are verifiable and the topic is a plausible search term. In this case a redirect to the publisher Policy Press, where the journal is already mentioned, would be the best course of action. --Mark viking (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

::Yeah, looks like Mark found what I found. I'd have no problem with a redirect but I still don't think it passes our notability criteria. Stalwart111 22:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

:::I could live with a redirect. --Randykitty (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

---

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 1 May 2014 (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.