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 Userfy. Moving this to User:3family6/Helvete (journal) -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helvete (journal)[edit]

Helvete (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable, relatively new journal. A handful of articles/blogposts, some of which mentioning the journal in passing, are listed in the article but otherwise there are no independent sources. Not indexed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Changing my vote to userfy as creator. WP:NJournals is an essay. Before creating this article, I looked for the notability criteria for academic journals, and could not find any guidelines listed (which I now know is because NJournals is an essay, not a guideline). However, I was able to find the notability standards for academic books, which state the following: "...most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice." They then give some thresholds of notability criteria, of which the following the Helvete article meets: Cited by academic publications; influential in its specialty area. Below I will list the other sources that cite this journal:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4] (twice in this one)
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

Note that these citations I found through Google Scholar, and it might not be possible to search within some articles in the links I've given above.

That's seven citations to a barely four-year-old journal which has released only two issues so far, in a highly specialized, esoteric-leaning sub-sub-field. In addition to those seven citations, it has also seen an article from it featured on Medievalists.net, and has received significant coverage in an independent, reliable source, and a brief mention in a different reliable source, and another brief mention in yet another reliable source (all four of these examples I had not encountered before now, and I will work to include these in the article). So, my contention is that while this journal may not have much significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, a highly specialized journal does not need such coverage. While WP:NJournal says that it does need general notability coverage, this is an essay, and thus WP:TEXTBOOK, which is a guideline reflecting community consensus, holds more weight. Going from impact within a field, this journal is highly notable. I encountered it yesterday incidental to other research, and as I looked into it I was surprised at the impact, which is what led me to create the article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment NJournals is indeed an essay that was designed to make it easier for academic journals to become notable. It has been used in AfDs of academic journals for years now, without much opposition. But if you don't want to follow it, I'm fine with going with GNG (this is not a book, so the book guideline is not applicable, although it is quite obvious that this doesn't meet that guideline either). The number of citations that this journal has garnered (perhaps a dozen, if we assume that you missed perhaps a few besides the 7 that you listed) is, quite frankly, rather pathetic, even for a young journal. The link to Medievalists.net is about a specific article and barely mentions the journal itself. What you call "significant coverage" is just a mention in an interview with an editor, that for the most part is about other subjects. And the brief mentions are indeed just that, in-passing brief mentions. This fails NJournals on all counts and, even if we ignore that because it is an essay, doesn't even come close to meeting GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Actually, using WP:NJournals, this article would satisfy criterion 2, and probably criterion a as well. So, using that metric, it does qualify. As for GNG, yes, it does not pass. But there already is a discrepancy between GNG and WP:TEXTBOOK. So, if it is decided that this article meets WP:TEXTBOOK, but is deleted because of GNG, then I think that this whole guideline needs to be re-examined. I think it is kind of silly to hold academic journals to a higher thresh-hold (in terms of independent coverage) than academic books, which is why I argue that WP:TEXTBOOK is the closest guideline applicable in this situation, with respect to the NJournals essay, which is basically the same as WP:TEXTBOOK.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I'm sorry, but a paltry seven cites is not "frequently cited by other reliable sources" (NJournals#2) and as I have shown above, it is not "considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area" (NJournals#1). It's not a textbook either, so TEXTBOOKS doesn't apply. Even if TEXTBOOKS did apply, this is a clear fail: this journal is not published by a reputed academic press, it is not "widely cited", it is not translated, there are no reliable sources establishing that it is considered to be influential in its specialty area, and it is not taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions. All that is left is GNG and, as you say, that fails, too. --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Seven citations might be a lot, or very, very little, depending on the discipline, and I will let other editors, including yourself, judge. My argument is that this journal, along with two or three academic books, virtually IS the field. This is a brand-new field (black metal theory) that emerged in the very late 2000s into the present. Metal studies as a whole is not a large field, and I was surprised that citations to this journal were found outside the narrow field of metal studies. Within metal studies, it is influential, and within black metal theory, it is one of a small handful of literature. I admit that I've never created an article on a journal before. I only did so for this publication because, through curiosity, I looked into it when I found it, and was surprised to find mention of it anywhere at all.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If the community does agree that this article should be deleted, I'd like to request userfication instead of deletion, as, in my research for this article and subsequent AfD, it looks as though Niall Scott or Amelia Ishmael, or both, may be notable, and the Hideous Gnosis symposium certainly is notable per GNG, and the content of this article could be included in those articles and other related black metal theory articles.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the routine standard of WP:GNG. WP:NJOURNAL is suppose to be an easy standard to pass and much more permissive than the usual standards, and this article fails that also. Even if this article were kept the text in the article does not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines for what content Wikipedia presents. This is WP:OR, and not a summary of what has already been published. This could be userfied if someone wanted to reconsider the scope of this and rewrite it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can understand the arguments from WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL. I submit that I was completely unfamiliar with creating articles about journals when I made this article, and followed only WP:TEXTBOOK, since WP:NJOURNAL isn't listed among the notability standards, and per Randykitty's rationale above, I can see how it wouldn't meet WP:TEXTBOOK either. I think the only real merit that this article has for keeping it is that it was the first heavy metal music-dedicated journal, predating the much more notable Metal Music Studies. However, I don't understand what in the article is original research, except maybe the disciplines list for what the journal covers. Everything else has citations, albeit many to first-party sources, which isn't unacceptable if the article does not rely unduly on them for notability support.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am withdrawing my keep vote and requesting userfication instead, where I will integrate the information about this journal into some more notable subjects, specifically Niall Scott, the International Society for Metal Music Studies, and maybe Amelia Ishmael.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft and userfy only if needed as I would've even said this article looks rather notable and acceptable for now but any further better improvement would be welcome of course. SwisterTwister talk 08:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SwisterTwister: I don't know how much improvement can be on the article in the recent future. More might emerge after a few year, but right now, the content can't really be developed much, as I was pretty exhaustive in the research for this journal once it was nominated for deletion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy, per the author's request. I am sympathetic to the challenges faced by journals that publish within arcane sub-sub-sub-fields and rarely receive citations outside their specialized field. These journals may be well-known to academics within that sub-field, yet the journals may receive no more than a dozen citations every few years. Nevertheless, this journal fails both WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per above, as it's the author's request. Not notable enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNAL right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2015 (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.