Deletion of Ars Disputandi

Comment: per DGG. Included in major databse in the field. However, I would like to make one comment: I agree that the article could be expanded with, say, the three most-cited articles it has published, because we have objective criteria for that # of citations). A list of notable authors, unless we can find a |reliable source discussing authors in this journal (small chance...) would just be some editor's opinion of who are the most notable authors here and be inadmissible OR. I also maintain that the WorldCat counts are rather meaningless for an OA journal, as explained above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: nothing to warrant keeping it around.  Being an independent peer-reviewed journal doesn't make it notable.  Looking at the comments, they resort to , , , and  (this one based on the fact that a major university publishes it).  I shall refer you to  and .  Mr. C.C
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS||WP:ITEXISTS||WP:USEFUL||WP:INHERITED||WP:INN||WP:EDPN)

Comment: Per #Notability, part of a core policy, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The merits of the article subject, such as being an academic, peer-reviewed journal, are irrelevant in light of that policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: per DGG, and if not that, then |Ignore All Rules. Having an article on a university published peer-reviewed journal that is widely cataloguied serves the needs of our readers. Who are we serving, the rules or the readers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)