634:, obviously. Just the first three pages of listings at Google Scholar show more than 1100 citations, and that's a tiny fraction of the published articles. This is easily enough to meet "Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area" and "Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources."
1222:. So are we going to decide which journals should be included and which not based upon the personal opinions of WP editors? Just as we have criteria for newspapers, so do we have criteria for academic journals. Arguing that this one is notable because it is published by a notable university and government agency flies in the face of
1137:
Any notable university working with government agency such as the USDA Forest
Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the USDA Agricultural Research Service, is a notable publication. Just as we list all newspapers even if they aren't referenced by other newspapers, we list legitimate
909:
I think, Randykitty, you are overly relying on the "indexed in selective databases" criterion here. That's one option for meeting journal notability, but not the only one. Reasonably long tenure, heavy citation, and big author names also figure into it, and this has all three. Personally I remember
382:
is a highly referenced publication in plant biology, especially botany and horticulture. It is used across a wide array of sources and is a production of the USDA Forestry
Service in collaboration with a few universities. Is it even allowed to be included in whatever selective databases you're
1093:
I'm saddened that you would dismiss my legitimate vote as you did. Shoud we dismiss all the votes that simply state "per nom", "per above" or "per user x" too? No, I don't think so. And the
Identifiers I mentioned show that this journal is recognized by important journal databases such as
1387:
that were started by notable publishers and never became notable. I really don't want to do away with the principle that at least part of our articles should be based on independent RS. Without in-depth coverage or selective databases, we can't do that.
1068:
Since when is being "solid" enough to be notable? If that's the case, I know a couple of million scientists that all should get a bio here. And which of the
Wikidata identifiers are proof of any notability? This !vote just is another instance of
943:
I (obviously) disagree. "Long tenure" is not a reason for notability. "Heavy citation" is relative, the figures mentioned above would be borderline for a single researcher, let alone for a whole journal. And "big names" falls afoul of
1244:
If notable universities and government agencies determine it is a legitimate scientific journal, then it is. Most people in this discussion seem to agree with this. I have no idea why you believe "not inherited" applies here.
205:
952:
We have absolutely nothing here, no in-depth sources (fails GNG), zero indexing (fails NJournals), modest citation counts (fails NJournals), nothing indicating any historical significance (another fail of NJournals).
782:
sources make this pass GNG? Thanks! No clue what "not paper" has to do here and if you want to "preserve" the info on this as yet non-notable journal, then follow
Headbomb's suggestion to merge this to the society.
248:.". DePRODded by article creator with reason "Notability is clear. NPS is a legitimate and well-regarded journal in its field". No support for this assertion is offered. PROD reason therefore still stand, hence:
910:
citing the heck out of this when working on New
Zealand native bush ecosystems back in the day - which may not count for much, but certainly makes me want to see a clear case of failing all three
1483:] argument: because those notable journals don't have an article, we should keep an article on this non-notable one. I'll take an hour later today to create sourced articles on those journals. --
1323:
These notable scientific agencies work together to publish a scientific journal. Its notable because the people in charge of researching and knowing things about it, are the ones creating it.
269:
1440:
166:
831:
I posed the above question) does not say anything like that, it just lists it as "reference". That's a far cry from the in-depth coverage required by GNG. Try reading it. Cheers. --
383:
speaking of (which ones?) when it is a government research production? As for the lack of independent sources claim, i've clearly already refuted that and i'm still working on it.
1431:
about this journal than the article currently does. Not everything works as a stand-alone page; in this case, one short-ish article would be preferable over two very short ones.
199:
611:
687:
How can it be TOOSOON to judge a journal that is 20 years old? Also, it is obvious that having thousands of citations in other reliable sources is relevant to notability.
551:
531:
652:, basically. Can be revisited once notability is actually established. The composition of the editorial board, or the notability of its published is irrelevant per
423:
Neither of the foregoing two "keep" !votes are convincing. A few press releases are not the in-depth coverage required for GNG. The !vote just above boils down to
445:"A few press releases" ? I don't think there's any press releases in the article. Coverage in conferences and national society meetings aren't press releases.
98:
113:
139:
134:
1468:
143:
126:
1297:
It is incorrct to say that notable universities and government agencies have "determined" that this is notable, the university and agency
1424:
645:
53:
93:
86:
17:
220:
187:
306:
1524:
A partner journal isn't the same as being run by that group. Many of journals partner together, but are still unique entities.
665:
107:
103:
1514:
1451:
1383:
So you're still arguing that because the publishers are notable, the journal must be notable. On my user page i have some
1189:
1138:
scientific publications as well. Knowledge (XXG) isn't just pop culture and politics, we have educational material also.
995:
926:
1480:
404:
The journal is a widely read publication and actively held in major libraries. The sourcing demonstrates its notability.
1558:
874:
181:
40:
1535:
1519:
1492:
1397:
1346:
1314:
1268:
1235:
1194:
1161:
1126:
1108:
1082:
1056:
1026:
1000:
962:
931:
886:
868:
840:
814:
792:
769:
726:
691:
678:
638:
622:
606:
584:
563:
543:
522:
497:
474:
456:
436:
413:
394:
364:
335:
311:
281:
261:
68:
861:
807:
762:
130:
177:
1464:
1223:
945:
653:
347:
JSTOR and
Project MUSE are access platforms. Neither is considered a selective indexing service in the sense of
911:
948:, of course. If this journal indeed is so significant, then why was it not picked up by selective databases.
227:
1174:
594:
424:
1530:
451:
427:. If this journal indeed has such an impact, then where are the sources that would go with such impact? --
389:
330:
979:. On reflection I'm probably biased in favour of the journal because I've cited it so much at one stage.
799:
It is an essential and standard reference in the field. Read the article and its references. Cheers.
743:
348:
241:
1554:
1436:
855:
801:
756:
493:
122:
74:
36:
747:
465:
Such announcements are absolutely routine coverage and nothing coming even close to satisfying GNG. --
1488:
1460:
1393:
1310:
1231:
1219:
1122:
1078:
1022:
958:
882:
836:
788:
602:
580:
518:
470:
432:
360:
351:. Any government publication, by the way, can be included in selective indexing services (some, like
302:
277:
257:
1070:
1042:
This looks like a solid publication. More useful information about this journal can be found at its
649:
1456:
619:
213:
193:
850:
751:
673:
661:
1525:
1510:
1185:
991:
922:
735:
559:
539:
446:
409:
384:
325:
82:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1553:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
669:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1432:
1324:
1246:
1139:
1101:
1049:
704:
489:
739:
245:
1484:
1389:
1384:
1306:
1227:
1118:
1074:
1018:
1017:
Oops, thanks for that link, I've struck that remark (got mixed up with something else). --
954:
878:
832:
784:
598:
576:
514:
466:
428:
356:
297:
273:
253:
615:
59:
976:
688:
657:
635:
488:, it is referenced in most of the "Find sources" links above, so clearly is notable.
1504:
1179:
985:
916:
555:
535:
405:
160:
1218:: In the present case it may be clear that this is a legitimate publication, but
1171:
Just as we list all newspapers even if they aren't referenced by other newspapers
1095:
293:
296:, so the claim of it not being indexed by a selective database is incorrect.
873:
Apparently you overlooked my preceding comment. Which dovetails nicely into
52:. Consensus to not delete, but no consensus whether to keep or to merge to
513:
of those "references" constitute the in-depth coverage required by GNG? --
853:. So your criticism about the timing is misplaced, IMO. Happy editing.
846:
352:
236:
Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any
1499:
321:
1113:
As I already explained, JSTOR is an access platform. It is not a
1549:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
971:
Well, reasonable cites. While not in the selective DBs, there
703:
Silver seren said all that needs to be said about this.
950:
In fact, it is not even included in non-selective ones.
156:
152:
148:
1500:
It's the (an?) official partner journal of the society
1043:
270:
list of
Academic journals-related deletion discussions
212:
226:
56:. This can be discussed further on the talk page.
240:databases, no independent sources. Does not meet
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1561:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1177:just like for all other types of publications.--
827:Fails verification. The source (which you added
550:Note: This discussion has been included in the
530:Note: This discussion has been included in the
268:Note: This discussion has been included in the
983:to the society might be the cleaner option. --
914:criteria before considering it non-notable. --
8:
552:list of Science-related deletion discussions
532:list of Biology-related deletion discussions
114:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1427:. There doesn't appear to be much more to
1216:we list legitimate scientific publications
549:
529:
267:
1459:. We are needing more pages, not fewer.
1301:is and you are arguing that the journal
1305:its notability from its publishers. --
1215:
1170:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1455:which is a red link, like the other
754:, which goes beyond cited sources.
1425:Society for Ecological Restoration
646:Society for Ecological Restoration
54:Society for Ecological Restoration
24:
1173:: to be fair, we don't - there's
355:are even government operated). --
1479:That's kind of like an reversed
99:Introduction to deletion process
849:. Which dovetails nicely into
292:: this journal is avaliable on
1:
1536:23:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
1520:23:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
1493:10:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
1469:22:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
1441:22:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
1398:16:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
1347:16:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
1315:16:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
1269:15:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
1236:15:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
1195:15:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
1162:15:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
1127:10:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
1117:in the sense of NJournals. --
1109:00:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
1083:11:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
1057:06:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
1027:17:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
1001:16:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
963:11:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
932:22:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
887:16:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
869:15:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
841:14:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
815:14:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
793:13:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
778:Please enlighten me: exactly
770:12:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
727:09:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
692:04:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
679:02:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
639:14:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
623:20:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
607:09:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
585:06:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
564:01:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
544:01:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
523:09:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
498:00:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
475:09:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
457:22:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
437:22:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
414:20:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
395:20:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
365:22:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
336:20:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
312:20:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
282:17:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
262:17:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
69:13:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
1044:Wikidata entry's Identifiers
1175:specific criteria for those
89:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1578:
1449:That Society's journal is
845:Apparently you overlooked
1551:Please do not modify it.
1220:often that is less clear
32:Please do not modify it.
750:. No compliance with
380:Native Plants Journal
123:Native Plants Journal
87:Articles for deletion
75:Native Plants Journal
1385:examples of journals
975:indexing - see list
734:Per reason cited by
1481:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1452:Restoration Ecology
877:. Happy editing. --
1115:selective database
875:WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT
1518:
1193:
999:
930:
736:User:Silver seren
566:
546:
310:
284:
104:Guide to deletion
94:How to contribute
67:
1569:
1533:
1528:
1508:
1507:
1457:similar journals
1343:
1340:
1337:
1334:
1331:
1328:
1265:
1262:
1259:
1256:
1253:
1250:
1183:
1182:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1149:
1146:
1143:
989:
988:
920:
919:
867:
857:7&6=thirteen
813:
803:7&6=thirteen
768:
758:7&6=thirteen
738:. Easily meets
723:
720:
717:
714:
711:
708:
677:
454:
449:
392:
387:
333:
328:
300:
231:
230:
216:
164:
146:
84:
66:
64:
57:
34:
1577:
1576:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1559:deletion review
1531:
1526:
1503:
1341:
1338:
1335:
1332:
1329:
1326:
1263:
1260:
1257:
1254:
1251:
1248:
1224:WP:NOTINHERITED
1178:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1147:
1144:
1141:
984:
946:WP:NOTINHERITED
915:
854:
800:
755:
721:
718:
715:
712:
709:
706:
656:
654:WP:NOTINHERITED
452:
447:
390:
385:
331:
326:
173:
137:
121:
118:
81:
78:
60:
58:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1575:
1573:
1564:
1563:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1472:
1471:
1444:
1443:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1318:
1317:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1239:
1238:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1165:
1164:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1104:
1086:
1085:
1060:
1059:
1052:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
966:
965:
935:
934:
912:WP:JOURNALCRIT
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
820:
819:
818:
817:
796:
795:
773:
772:
729:
697:
696:
695:
694:
682:
681:
641:
628:
627:
626:
625:
609:
589:
588:
568:
567:
547:
527:
526:
525:
501:
500:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
460:
459:
440:
439:
417:
416:
398:
397:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
339:
338:
315:
314:
286:
285:
234:
233:
170:
117:
116:
111:
101:
96:
79:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1574:
1562:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1547:
1546:
1537:
1534:
1529:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1516:
1512:
1506:
1501:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1453:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1419:
1418:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1386:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1348:
1345:
1344:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1270:
1267:
1266:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1196:
1191:
1187:
1181:
1176:
1172:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1159:
1136:
1135:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1102:
1097:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1067:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1050:
1046:. Cordially,
1045:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1002:
997:
993:
987:
982:
978:
974:
970:
969:
968:
967:
964:
960:
956:
951:
947:
942:
939:
938:
937:
936:
933:
928:
924:
918:
913:
908:
905:
904:
900:
899:
888:
884:
880:
876:
872:
871:
870:
865:
864:
859:
858:
852:
848:
844:
843:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
816:
811:
810:
805:
804:
798:
797:
794:
790:
786:
781:
777:
776:
775:
774:
771:
766:
765:
760:
759:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
730:
728:
725:
724:
702:
699:
698:
693:
690:
686:
685:
684:
683:
680:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
648:
647:
642:
640:
637:
633:
630:
629:
624:
621:
617:
613:
610:
608:
604:
600:
596:
595:WP:ITSNOTABLE
593:
592:
591:
590:
587:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
548:
545:
541:
537:
533:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
505:
504:
503:
502:
499:
495:
491:
487:
484:
483:
476:
472:
468:
464:
463:
462:
461:
458:
455:
450:
444:
443:
442:
441:
438:
434:
430:
426:
425:WP:ITSNOTABLE
422:
419:
418:
415:
411:
407:
403:
400:
399:
396:
393:
388:
381:
377:
374:
373:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
343:
342:
341:
340:
337:
334:
329:
323:
319:
318:
317:
316:
313:
308:
304:
299:
295:
291:
288:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
266:
265:
264:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
229:
225:
222:
219:
215:
211:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
179:
176:
175:Find sources:
171:
168:
162:
158:
154:
150:
145:
141:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
119:
115:
112:
109:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
91:
90:
88:
83:
76:
73:
71:
70:
65:
63:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1550:
1548:
1450:
1428:
1420:
1325:
1302:
1298:
1247:
1140:
1114:
1100:
1099:
1065:
1048:
1047:
1039:
980:
972:
949:
940:
906:
902:
901:
862:
856:
828:
808:
802:
779:
763:
757:
744:WP:Not paper
731:
705:
700:
643:
631:
575:passes GNG.
572:
571:
510:
506:
485:
420:
401:
379:
375:
349:WP:NJournals
344:
322:Project MUSE
289:
249:
242:WP:NJournals
237:
235:
223:
217:
209:
202:
196:
190:
184:
174:
80:
61:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1103:History DMZ
1051:History DMZ
748:WP:Preserve
490:Hardyplants
200:free images
1485:Randykitty
1433:XOR'easter
1390:Randykitty
1307:Randykitty
1228:Randykitty
1119:Randykitty
1075:Randykitty
1071:WP:ILIKEIT
1019:Randykitty
955:Randykitty
879:Randykitty
833:Randykitty
785:Randykitty
650:WP:TOOSOON
612:Sockstrike
599:Randykitty
577:DoctorsHub
515:Randykitty
467:Randykitty
429:Randykitty
357:Randykitty
298:P,TO 19104
274:Randykitty
254:Randykitty
62:Sandstein
1555:talk page
1098:. G'Day,
851:WP:Before
752:WP:Before
644:Merge to
616:Blablubbs
238:selective
37:talk page
1557:or in a
1515:contribs
1303:inherits
1190:contribs
996:contribs
927:contribs
658:Headbomb
307:contribs
167:View log
108:glossary
39:or in a
1505:Elmidae
1299:publish
1180:Elmidae
1066:Comment
986:Elmidae
981:Merging
941:Comment
917:Elmidae
556:Thriley
536:Thriley
507:Comment
421:Comment
406:Thriley
353:MEDLINE
345:Comment
320:And in
290:Comment
206:WP refs
194:scholar
140:protect
135:history
85:New to
1527:Silver
1461:Andrew
740:WP:GNG
597:... --
448:Silver
386:Silver
327:Silver
250:Delete
246:WP:GNG
178:Google
144:delete
1532:seren
1421:Merge
1342:Focus
1264:Focus
1157:Focus
1096:JSTOR
1040:Keep.
907:Merge
829:after
780:which
722:Focus
511:which
453:seren
391:seren
332:seren
294:JSTOR
221:JSTOR
182:books
161:views
153:watch
149:links
16:<
1511:talk
1489:talk
1465:talk
1437:talk
1394:talk
1311:talk
1232:talk
1226:. --
1186:talk
1123:talk
1079:talk
1073:. --
1023:talk
992:talk
977:here
959:talk
923:talk
903:Keep
883:talk
847:this
837:talk
789:talk
742:.
732:Keep
701:Keep
689:Zero
636:Zero
632:Keep
620:talk
603:talk
581:talk
573:Keep
560:talk
540:talk
519:talk
509:And
494:talk
486:Keep
471:talk
433:talk
410:talk
402:Keep
378:The
376:Keep
361:talk
303:talk
278:talk
258:talk
214:FENS
188:news
157:logs
131:talk
127:edit
1463:🐉(
1429:say
1423:to
746:.
305:) (
244:or
228:TWL
165:– (
1513:·
1502:--
1491:)
1467:)
1439:)
1396:)
1388:--
1313:)
1234:)
1188:·
1125:)
1081:)
1025:)
994:·
973:is
961:)
953:--
925:·
885:)
839:)
791:)
783:--
672:·
668:·
664:·
614:.
605:)
583:)
562:)
554:.
542:)
534:.
521:)
496:)
473:)
435:)
412:)
363:)
324:.
309:)
280:)
272:.
260:)
252:.
208:)
159:|
155:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
1517:)
1509:(
1487:(
1435:(
1392:(
1339:m
1336:a
1333:e
1330:r
1327:D
1309:(
1261:m
1258:a
1255:e
1252:r
1249:D
1230:(
1192:)
1184:(
1154:m
1151:a
1148:e
1145:r
1142:D
1121:(
1077:(
1021:(
998:)
990:(
957:(
929:)
921:(
881:(
866:)
863:☎
860:(
835:(
812:)
809:☎
806:(
787:(
767:)
764:☎
761:(
719:m
716:a
713:e
710:r
707:D
676:}
674:b
670:p
666:c
662:t
660:{
618:|
601:(
579:(
558:(
538:(
517:(
492:(
469:(
431:(
408:(
359:(
301:(
276:(
256:(
232:)
224:·
218:·
210:·
203:·
197:·
191:·
185:·
180:(
172:(
169:)
163:)
125:(
110:)
106:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.