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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Journal of Religion and Violence

Journal of Religion and Violence (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Article PRODded with reason: "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator (who appears to have a COI) with reason "removed proposed deletion tag, after confirming the journal's connection to a group of the American Academy of Religion and adding notable contributors". However, notability is not inherited. Hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Randykitty ( talk) 17:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• RandyKitty, I provided the reference to AAR because you asked for an independent source. It takes up to three years for a commercial indexing service to make decisions about indexing coverage. With a fulltext license indexing coverage can be arranged in a month. In my view, these business issues undermine your otherwise understandable reference to some 3rd party criteria. I've referenced notable authors and the journal's editorial ties (with sources) to confirm notability. Change the wording if you prefer to make this clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gleaman ( talk • contribs)

• Comment Sorry, but that is incorrect. Some journals get into the mentioned indexes very rapidly (for example, the ECS Journal of Solid State Science and Technology, established in 2012: already in 2014 indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded, Current Contents/Physical, Chemical & Earth Sciences, Current Contents/Engineering, Computing & Technology, Chemical Abstracts Service, and Scopus. Also a 2013 impact factor was released in summer 2014). Even if you were correct that it takes years, well, then that is what it takes to become notable. Apart from royal babies, not many things are notable the day they are born/created. At this point, divining whether this journal is going to become notable or not requires a well-functioning crystal ball and I just dropped mine... WP:TOOSOON. And the connection with a notable group is not a guarantee that the journal will eventually become notable either (I have a list of journals on my user page that were started by reputable publishers with deep pockets and failed after a few years, never becoming notable at all). -- Randykitty ( talk) 20:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• examples given for rapid indexed journals come from physical and social sciences-- as are your statistics about "failures," due to specific financial networks for such journals (e.g., authors must pay money to submit in social science/physical science journals, humanities they do not; reviewers review for free in humanities journals, etc). Provide a rapidly indexed journal from the Humanities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.5.6 ( talk) 05:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Reviewers work for free in social science/science journals, too. Most journals, except OA journals, don't ask for a submission fee, either. In any case, there are many humanities specific databases (to name but one: Arts and Humanities Citation Index) and I fail to see the relevance of your "financial networks" argument. -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per Nomination. Elmmapleoakpine ( talk) 18:37, 10 February 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.