Deletion of Democracy & Nature (4th nomination)

Comment: The above wall of text contains so many misconceptions about what Wikipedia is and how things are done here that I hardly know where to start. Let me start with saying that you should comment on the subject at hand, not the editor. My motivations are irrelevant and, in any case, WP requires that we |assume good faith from the part of editors with whom we have a difference of opinion. Please read . Second, the above seems to assume that I am applying standards that are used for scientific journals to this one. That is untrue. For example, there are many ''selective'' bibliographic databases (not the same as library catalogs) that are specialized in political science, or whatever category you want to class this journal in. Further (I'll stop counting now, it's just to cumbersome), if something "cannot be heard easily in the mainstream or sometimes even the "alternative" media", then unfortunately that something is just not notable. WP is an encyclopedia and is not here to promote any ideas or publications. WP reports what is said in neutral, independent reliable sources. Simple things ''can'' be sourced to primary, non-independent sources (such as the T&F website of this journal). However, such sources obviously have no impact on notability. Referring to your point "A", people discussing with each other in a certain journal is nothing out of the ordinary, so that does not make a journal notable, ''unless'' that debate has been ''noted'' outside of the small circle of people publishing in said journal. You are correct that the presence of primary sources in and of itself is no reason to nominate an article for deletion. However, if ''all'' available sources are primary and not independent of the journal, then that is an excellent reason to nominate a journal for deletion. And selecting some debates from the journal is already OR, because it is done solely following the opinion of the editor who did the selecting. That the journal "served as a colloquium for a wide range of radical left groups, etc" is ''not'' something that some reliable source said, nor is it even something that the journal said (and if it did, that is ''not'' the kind of "neutral fact" that can be sourced to primary non-independent sources). It is the ''interpretation'' of a WP editor. Point "B" criticizes my use of GScholar and simissing EBSCO as not being selective. However, I did not mention those items to ''prove'' absence of notability. Obviously that is not something that can be proven, only notability itself can be established. I mentioned this to show that GS did not give evidence of notability. If GS had shown lots of citations, that would show notability, not the other way around. So all I basically said was that I couldn't find any evidence of notability, which is a standard reason to take an article to AFD. If somebody here has better searching abilities and can show ''any'' evidence of notability, then please present it. The argument that I am looking in the wrong place is a straw man. Item "C" criticizes my response to somebody who ''did'' think that these scattered references constitute evidence of notability. Now, please decide, either GS can show notability for this journal or it cannot, you cannot have it both ways. Item "D" is a complete misinterpretation and failure to understand what WP regards as a |reliable source that shows notability. If we follow your reasoning, then any academic article that ever has been cited 2 or 3 times is notable and we should write an article about it here. As for the long list of references that you posted, I don't see anything that goes towards in-depth coverage of the journal. All the above keep !votes boil down to "ignore all rules" or . If this journal is as important as several people here so loudly claim, then why is it so difficult to find anything written about the journal
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:ADHOM||WP:RS||WP:ILIKEIT)