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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EdTechnology Ideas

[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal, having published just a handful of articles yet. Article creation vastly premature. References do not even mention the journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Brand new journal with 9 papers published. Hasn't had time to develop notability in reliable secondary sources that talk about the journal. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:39, 25 September 2013 (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.