Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TranscUlturAl

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TranscUlturAl

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

Article deprodded by IP. Original PROD reason was "Rather new journal with only 2 published (annual) issues yet. Apparently not abstracted or indexed anywhere. No independent sources. Article creation premature. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG." Since the prod was removed, the following statement was added to the article (and to the journal's homepage): "The journal is indexed on humanities bibliographies such as the Modern Language Association and Benjamins Translation Studies". These are not major, selective databases. On the article's talk page, the same IP that deprodded claims to be an editorial board member and ask for "Wikipedia's support", which is not really what WP is about. There are no independent sources. In all, it seems that the original PROD reason still holds and I therefore nominate this article for deletion. Crusio (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the nomination sums up the position adequately. With only 2 published issues according to the journal's website, this would need some exceptional reason for notability and none is apparent to me. However this is far from my field, and I'm willing to change my mind if anyone provides more evidence. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to object that the MLA International Bibliography most certainly is a major, selective database, but a search shows no articles from TranscUlturAl and none edited by Sathya Rao there. I don't know what else "humanities databases such as Modern Language Association" might refer to. I wish the editors all the best with this journal, but with only two issues published and no outside media coverage, it's not ready for Wikipedia. Cnilep (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2010 (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.