User talk:Gladtobeherenow
Welcome
[edit]
|
Gladtobeherenow, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi Gladtobeherenow! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC) |
The article Almagest (journal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable journal. No independent references, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
==
Upon Randykitty’s suggestion I have removed the proposed deletion and will say why. First of all, I have found another place where the journal is indexed (not counting Google scholar which has now been removed but which is mentioned in some Wikipedia pages). (By the way, the journal has not existed for long, which is of course no argument but it does mean that it relatively often indexed compared with journals that have a long history.)
Supposing however that this still means that Almagest must be deleted: I understand why journals that are not notable must not be mentioned, but when something is sufficiently notable can be debated. If what I have mentioned here is not sufficient, you should remove the page, but then (at least) the following journal pages must also be deleted (as they provide fewer or no sources of notability):
-Ambix -Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society -Bulletin of the History of Medicine -Centaurus (journal) -Gesnerus -Health and History -Histoire des sciences médicales -Historical Records of Australian Science -Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences -Journal for the History of Astronomy -Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences -Journal of the History of the Neurosciences -Perspectives on Science -Psychoanalysis and History -Revue d'Histoire de la Pharmacie -The Rutherford Journal -Social Science History -Technology and Culture -Terrae Incognitae (journal)
So most of the journals in the Category "History of science journals" should be deleted.
In sum, please be consistent. Either delete all of the journals just mentioned (and perhaps Almagest, although Almagest still has better 'papers' than these journals and may accordingly still be argued to remain), or keep all of these journals, including Almagest. It would be strange in any event if stricter criteria were applied to Almagest than to the other journals. Gladtobeherenow (talk) 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If we follow your reasoning, the minimum inclusion criteria would be the very worst existing article here. Also, asking editors to "be consistent" is not very useful in a project that counts millions of pages. Surely you realize that no single person can oversee all that (even if somebody would be crazy enough to want to do such a thing....). I'm going to restore the improvement tags, as none of the problems has been addressed. And if I may say so, your text above is a rather eloquent argument about why this article should be deleted, not kept... --Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you have not addressed the points I made (nor can I place the (I take it ad hominem) remark about my remarks being an argument why this article should be deleted, since I have added another source (which, again, the other journals lack)). By being consistent I only meant to say that I don't understand why you focus on some articles but not others. In this case that means that you should remove the deletion signs until you have placed them with the other journals as well (or otherwise your policy is completely random, or at least not consistent)). Apart from all of that, why have you reinstated the deletion remarks now that TWO sources - which are also mentioned with similar journals on Wikipedia - are mentioned (and it would have been three if Google scholar had been accepted)? Gladtobeherenow (talk) 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Are we talking about the same article? All I see as "source" is the journal's homepage. There is no deletion tag. I have no policy, I only follow WP policy. I am under no obligation to tag all similar pages (as this is obviously impossible) before I can tag this page. Inclusion in Google Scholar and OCLC is as trivial an argument as saying "the journal has an ISSN" or 'they have a homepage". I don't focus on some journals and not on others: I edit those articles that I encounter and where I see action is needed. Again, that does not oblige me to go out and start searching for similar journal articles and tag them, too. I'm sorry that you took my previous remarks ad hominem. They were not intended that way, but they still stand; your arguments just emphasize the lack of notability of this particular journal. --Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, we're talking about the same article. By 'sources' I referred to "Philosophy Research Index" (and the two other sources you have now removed). I understand why you have not 'targeted' the other journals I mentioned; I may do that myself later on. So I accept your two points (namely, (1) 'othercrapexists' is no argument; (2) Google scholar and OCLC don't contribute much). However, is the source that remains - Philosophy Research Index - not sufficient? If not, do I need to add a similar source and would that be enough to remove the deletion suggestion? Gladtobeherenow (talk) 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I see that there is some confusion here and understand now why I misunderstood your previous comment. A "source" is a reference in an article to a place where the statement being sourced to is discussed. Providing a wikilink to a database is not, in this sense, a source. At the WikiProject Academic Journals (where WP:NJournals originated), we accept inclusion in a selective major database as evidence of notability. Note that this is controversial, many editors here don't accept that, which is why NJournals is an essay, not a guideline. Many editors insist on "real" references that provide in-depth discussion of a journal before accepting that it is notable. Fortunately, most of the time we get away with applying NJournals, otherwise many important journals would not be included in WP. I hope this explains why we need to be careful about our inclusion criteria. Back to the current case, the PRI states on its website] that it aims for "coverage of all journals and series in philosophy", suggesting that this is not the kind of selective database meant in NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I see that you have started tagging a large number of similar journals. However, the "notability" tag is not always justified. If, for example, you take a moment to look here, you'll see that this journals is indexed in a whole list of very selective indexes and obviously is notable. In a case like this, you either don't tag it, or you add the information showing that, in fact, it is notable. Putting tags on articles that show that you didn't take a moment to see whether the tag is justified, especially when done in large numbers and just after your "own" article was tagged, is often regarded as "pointy" and can get you in trouble. --Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. However, if I understand the policies correctly, this still means that it is uncumbent on someone to indicate that this is the case (in other words, the notability must be established by referring to the site you mention, or something similar), and he/she can then remove the tag. Gladtobeherenow (talk) 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not completely. If you see an unreferenced article, you can place a tag accordingly. However, even though there are no sources, you only tag for notability if you have clear doubts that something may be notable. If there are external links in the article, the least you can do is follow them and see whether they indicate any notability. If you place a lot of tags that are clearly unwarranted, you can get into trouble here, a that is considered vandalism. Another example of unwarranted tags that I just saw is Ambix. The journal has an impact factor and there are multiple references, some of them secondary sources independent of the subject of the article. Yet, you tagged this for notability, being unreferenced, depending on one source, and using only primary sources. I have removed these tags. I have no time (nor the inclination), to go through your edit history, but I recommend that you do this yourself and remove any unwarranted tags. --Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Almagest (disambiguation)
[edit]The article Almagest (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Per WP:2DABS, direct hatnote best in these circumstances
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Almagest (journal) for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almagest (journal) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.