Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philica (2nd nomination)

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philica

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

Open access journal in existence since 2006, when an AFD was closed as "no consensus". Tagged for notability and sources since September 2010. No independent sources (there is one reference to a blog interview, but that link just goes to the main page of the blog and a search for "Philica" comes up negative) and the journal is not included in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Their innovative method of dealing with peer reviews leads me to believe it may fall under NJ#3: "The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history.". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as interesting but lacking coverage. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I've found no indication this journal passes WP:NJOURNAL or WP:GNG. I'll watch here in case anyone pans gems out of the less-than-reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 19:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some good sources on Google Books which I've added to the article. In particular, Fitzpatrick's Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy (NYU Press 2011) has a 4-page discussion of Philica, but various other sources discuss its innovative nature, advantages and disadvantages. Also mentions in other books and in Nature Physics. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sources are just an in-passing mention (with the exception of the Fitzpatrick book). Some of the stuff that you added to the article (the Watson and Crick thing) are not supported by the source. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Along with what now is in the Wikipedia article,[1] some sources Web journals threaten peer-review system September 29, 2006, "PLoS ONE, similar to established online academic journals such as Philica and the International Journal of Medical Sciences, is ..."[2], Philadelphia Inquirer October 20, 2006, "Philica, an online interdisciplinary journal that's still in testing, offers a new twist for incorporating readers' opinions."[3], (Footnote 2 cites a Philica article),[4]. Guillaume2303's comment above -- "Some of the stuff that you added to the article (the Watson and Crick thing) are not supported by the source." tips the scale towards weak delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2012 (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.