Independence Star: The two sources cited are random WP:UGC from Twitter, and I can find nothing that could possibly elevate this to the required notabililty.  This subject as it stands has absolutely no place being its own article, and I implore the article's creator to read up on Wikipedia's guidelines on notability (e.g. WP:GNG , WP:WEBSITE ).  TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the person who moved this article to draft space initially, I'm inclined to agree.  And this page could easily be merged with Dermot Hudson , if there are any reliable citations found.  ForsythiaJo ( talk ) 23:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nah so the twitter is the account of Dermot Hudson + surely the more knowledge available on Wikipedia the better?  There are so many articles on some random village with 15 people living there or some rare species of frog which went extinct 100 years ago like you going to merge those too?  Like if I made an article of a list of election campaigns from the WIMLMZT it’d make sense, but this is a thing, that exists.  i used those sources as proof of existence for the earlier issues as like that was the only way they were being shared + on Facebook probably.  Marxistnatalie ( talk ) 07:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, Marxistnatalie .  Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF , WP:PRIMARY , WP:MAPOUTCOMES , and WP:SPECIES on top of the ones listed above if these are your concerns.  Please also see the essay WP:ENN , which is not itself an official Wikipedia guideline but instead adequately explains how they pertain to your concern of "it exists; it deserves an article."  TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Incidentally, please also see WP:SOAPBOX as I noted on your talk page.  You seem to have an extensive history of political soapboxing within this project and may be restricted from editing topics related to politics in the future should you continue to ignore repeated warnings against it.  TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Nothing that points to any notability whatsoever.  Marxistnatalie , WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong argument to use in this kind of discussions.  -- Randykitty ( talk ) 08:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Non-notable journal, fails GNG and NJOURNALS.  The Twitter sources cited are pretty obviously not reliable or independent.  WJ94 ( talk ) 09:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, no merge barely-existing journal for the proponent or proponents of a British communist splinter group following North Korean ideology, sourced only to two twitter posts by its editor.  No evidence of passing WP:GNG nor any of the suggested criteria in WP:NJOURNALS .  Not even worthy of a merge to its main proponent, Dermot Hudson , because we do not have WP:BLP -adequate sourcing for including it in Hudson's article.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The sentiment "the more knowledge the better" is not a sufficient rationale for keeping this article.  Fails GNG and NJOURNALS.  Sourcing to Twitter or other social media does not indicate notability --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 23:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Seemingly no real-world traces of notability at this time - even the twitter post references have no "weight" (widespread engagement, notable replies & interest, etc).  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 03:03, 13 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete