Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Theory in Action - Knowledge

Source 📝

369:
for an article, or the subject of an interview). There is no false information presented in the entry, and TIA is not some newsletter printed & distributed in a grocery store parking lot somewhere in Topeka, KS; it is a journal that is edited by, published by, and features the work of, other respected college professors & activists (radical as some of them might be). I can find no grounds for deletion based on Knowledge's standards, as well as my own judgement as a full-time college professor, published author, and co-editor of the oldest continuously running publication on the Internet (Bad Subjects). User:Speckdog 10:31 EST, 30 September 2012.
383:", with the exception of the argument about library holdings. However, part of these holdings will be through general access services like EBSCO (meaning a library did not really decide to subscribe to the journal, but just lists it because it gets it as part of a package deal), so I'd like to see a bit more solid evidence for notability than that. If the journal is as good as people here claim, it will soon garner either independent sources or be included in reputable 299:. NJ notes "For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries", and this journal has a cited claim about "it is available in over 220 academic libraries worldwide". The publisher and editor seem notable. I don't see this as self-promotional, seems like a neutral entry. -- 52:. All comment relating to the neutrality or lack thereof were discounted as that is an editing issue and not pertinent to a deletion debate. The issue of how many libraries it is in seems to have been refuted as not necessarily indicating notability. Therefore it seems consensus favors he idea that at this time this subject is not sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia entry. Willing to 336:. I am not a pro wiki editor but believe this is a legitimate entry as a Marxist academic journal, names involved are a who’s who of the Left. It has coverage e.g., listed on the Alternative Press Index, listed by Worldcat as available globally in 220 libraries. Examples of coverage/reference by other independent institutions/sources: 368:
Theory in Action (TIA) is a legitimate academic/activist publication that is accessible online, and also in hundreds of libraries worldwide. Not every publication garners 'substantial coverage by independent sources', because most publications are not objects of study unto themselves (i.e. the basis
273:
Why deleting it when it only describes a journal without referring or making judgements about any other thing. It is an informative entry, it adds information to the web and harms nobody, I think that is what Knowledge is, or should be, about
170: 214: 254: 123: 319:
as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page.
164: 205:. There have been determined efforts to promote the topic, onwiki and offwiki, so it's easy to find ghits - but there's a severe shortage of substantial coverage by 234: 130: 96: 91: 281: 100: 83: 185: 17: 152: 337: 146: 419: 40: 345: 400: 360: 328: 311: 289: 266: 246: 226: 65: 142: 396: 285: 87: 341: 324: 415: 392: 356: 192: 36: 352: 79: 71: 277: 61: 222: 178: 388: 380: 376: 320: 305: 262: 242: 158: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
414:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
53: 57: 218: 210: 202: 338:
http://www2.myacpa.org/social-newsletter/past-newsletters/1965-fall-a-winter-2010-2
301: 258: 238: 117: 349: 346:
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/yma03/files/Theory%20in%20Action%20V2%20N2.pdf
342:
http://www.unav.es/adi/UserFiles/CvFiles/Files/17417/Social%20model.pdf
408:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
215:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Transformative Studies Institute
217:; a different one removed the PROD that I placed recently. 113: 109: 105: 177: 255:
list of Social science-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 422:). No further edits should be made to this page. 350:http://www.projectcensored.org/about/partners/ 235:list of Politics-related deletion discussions 191: 8: 379:. Most of the above arguments come down to " 253:Note: This debate has been included in the 233:Note: This debate has been included in the 209:sources. Article was created by one of the 252: 232: 302:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 7: 387:databases. At the moment, though, 24: 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 401:15:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 361:18:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 329:00:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 312:18:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 290:16:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 267:02:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 247:02:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 227:20:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC) 66:23:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 1: 439: 411:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 375:Article creation seems 201:Appears to fail the 48:The result was 280:comment added by 269: 249: 430: 413: 308: 292: 196: 195: 181: 133: 121: 103: 80:Theory in Action 72:Theory in Action 34: 438: 437: 433: 432: 431: 429: 428: 427: 426: 420:deletion review 409: 310: 306: 275: 138: 129: 94: 78: 75: 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 436: 434: 425: 424: 404: 403: 370: 363: 331: 314: 300: 271: 270: 250: 199: 198: 135: 74: 69: 56:if requested. 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 435: 423: 421: 417: 412: 406: 405: 402: 398: 394: 393:Guillaume2303 390: 389:we cannot say 386: 382: 378: 374: 371: 367: 364: 362: 358: 354: 351: 347: 343: 339: 335: 332: 330: 326: 322: 318: 315: 313: 309: 303: 298: 295: 294: 293: 291: 287: 283: 282:82.158.236.99 279: 268: 264: 260: 256: 251: 248: 244: 240: 236: 231: 230: 229: 228: 224: 220: 216: 212: 208: 204: 194: 190: 187: 184: 180: 176: 172: 169: 166: 163: 160: 157: 154: 151: 148: 144: 141: 140:Find sources: 136: 132: 128: 125: 119: 115: 111: 107: 102: 98: 93: 89: 85: 81: 77: 76: 73: 70: 68: 67: 63: 59: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 410: 407: 384: 372: 365: 333: 321:Stuartyeates 316: 296: 276:— Preceding 272: 206: 200: 188: 182: 174: 167: 161: 155: 149: 139: 126: 49: 47: 31: 28: 353:Robdirect75 207:independent 165:free images 381:WP:ILIKEIT 307:reply here 58:Beeblebrox 416:talk page 385:selective 377:premature 259:• Gene93k 239:• Gene93k 219:bobrayner 37:talk page 418:or in a 278:unsigned 124:View log 39:or in a 171:WP refs 159:scholar 97:protect 92:history 373:Delete 317:Delete 203:WP:GNG 143:Google 101:delete 54:userfy 50:delete 213:from 186:JSTOR 147:books 131:Stats 118:views 110:watch 106:links 16:< 397:talk 391:. -- 366:Keep 357:talk 334:Keep 325:talk 297:Keep 286:talk 263:talk 243:talk 223:talk 211:SPAs 179:FENS 153:news 114:logs 88:talk 84:edit 62:talk 193:TWL 122:– ( 399:) 359:) 348:, 344:, 340:, 327:) 288:) 265:) 257:. 245:) 237:. 225:) 173:) 116:| 112:| 108:| 104:| 99:| 95:| 90:| 86:| 64:) 395:( 355:( 323:( 304:| 284:( 261:( 241:( 221:( 197:) 189:· 183:· 175:· 168:· 162:· 156:· 150:· 145:( 137:( 134:) 127:· 120:) 82:( 60:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
talk page
deletion review
userfy
Beeblebrox
talk
23:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Theory in Action
Theory in Action
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Stats
Google
books
news
scholar
free images
WP refs
FENS
JSTOR
TWL
WP:GNG

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.