Talk:Philosophy Pathways

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Philosophy: Literature / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Contemporary philosophy

Notability[edit]

DOAJ seems to be a reliable tertiary source; and an entry in a single reliable tertiary source would indicate notability, the way an article on X in a reliable tertiary source, such as Encyclopædia Britannica, would indicate X’s notability. ~ RogDel (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DOAJ is not a selective database and its information is provided by the journals/publishers themselves. Being included in DOAJ does not add anything to the notability of any journal (see WP:NJournals). --Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something closely related to this topic, if not the topic itself, might be notable. It could be Klempner or his society or something. I am yet to be sure though. So let the notability boiler remain. Hinduresci (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, looks like it's no longer in the DOAJ anyway, assuming it did actually ever exist there. Hinduresci (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added these to the Further reading section: 1) Jules Evans interview of Geoffrey Klempner for Evans' project Philosophical Communities for the Arts and Humanities Research Council; 2) Article by Tim Le Bon for The Philosophers' Magazine; 3) Link to Issue 186 of Philosophy Pathways edited by Christopher Norris; 4) Article by Marianne Talbot for The Daily Telegraph. These add modest weight to notability. Philosophy Pathways was on DOAJ but removed for refusal to comply with DOAJ Licensing rules. GershonVelvel (talk) 18:27, 14 October (UTC)
According to WP:JOURNALCRIT, "If a journal meets any of the following criteria, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, it qualifies for a stand-alone article.
Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.

Now, I reckon the 3rd criterion might be out of question, and the 2nd criterion, being void of quantification, might be equivocal, and the 1st criterion seems to stand in need of at least two independent and reliable published sources which deem a journal influential in its subject area, whereas as far as I can see, there is only one as to the topic whose notability has been questioned. — Hinduresci (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]