526:
up-to-date than other sources, which we can achieve by our access to bleeding-edge research in journals that has yet to filter through to textbooks or print encyclopaedias, and we found ourselves saying the same thing in AfD debates so often that we summarised our view as an essay. NJournals looks like an essay that wants to be a guideline, to me, and it's unfortunate that the two essays come at the same subject from different points of view. But let's not pretend that one essay "outranks" the other, shall we?—
836:- To be honest, I don't see any truly, outstandingly convincing things to make me believe this article should be kept. On the other hand, I don't see any truly, outstandingly convincing things to make be believe that it should be deleted, either. Therefore I default to a position that this should be kept, although with no prejudice against a renomination sooner than would usually be considered non-pointy. -
611:- The lowest possible bar for scholarly journals, under the policy of IAR — use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Footnotes often link to a journal title. Some verifiable and accurate information in a blue link trumps no information in a red link. Neither the essays cited above should be worth 5 cents at AfD — they are opinion pieces, not an approved policy (such as IAR) or guideline (such as GNG).
502:
WP:SJ and WP:NJournals are in direct conflict with each other. Both are officially essays but my opinion is that WP:NJournals is much closer to being a reflection of the usual
Knowledge (XXG) policies, guidelines, and consensus, and that invoking WP:SJ is a very weak way of supporting a keep opinion.
787:
Knowledge (XXG) articles largely are built on inline references that cite to journals, nagazines, books, newspaper, etc. In the
Knowledge (XXG) citation, the name of the journal often is dynamically linked (e.g., the ] are put around the journal name.) If there are enough of those, perhaps 20 to 40,
402:. Inclusion as an entry in a large database of journals doesn't seem to be enough to me to convey notability. And the connection with the SETI Institute seems too tenuous to me to warrant a merge; it seems to be less a sponsoring organization and more that they have a joint fundraiser together. —
525:
in early 2009. It's very much an essay, consisting mostly of unsubstantiated opinion statements about the reasons why scholarly journals are in many ways
Knowledge (XXG)'s most important sources... basically, Drmies and I took the view that one of Knowledge (XXG)'s strengths is in being more
475:
WP:SJ indeed applies here and that would be relevant if it were policy. However, it's just the opinion of one editor that reliable sources should have an article here. Logically, it should also apply to books, magazines, etc. The result would be that for these publications, we throw away
799:, but even if it didn't, all those internal Knowledge (XXG) links might, in my view, justify maintaining a stand alone article on the reference topic. It's a unique feature of publications and probably could be mentioned at
159:
636:, because there aren't any sources (apart from the not-very-informative homepage of this journal) that we can base an article on. To make this a bit clearer, I have struck the reference to NJournals in then nom. --
590:
Relist comment: The above opinions are mostly based on two contradictory essays about journal notability. To obtain an informed consensus, we need more opinions that are based on accepted policies or guidelines.
715:
It doesn't, but I think that Uzma is referring to the IAR argument used above by
Carrite, saying that because the journal is not or hardly cited on WP itself, there's no use in invoking IAR. --
484:, as all we have to verify information is the journal's homepage (and given the confusion about the journal's name and date of establishment signaled above, that could be better, too). --
284:
There was an old website for the previous title at www.wh-magazine.com. This site is no longer active. The LGBT magazine is an unrelated publication published by a different publisher.
669:. If you go around and improve 20 to 40 or so Knowledge (XXG) articles with citations to The Astronomical Review, then you might have a basis for keeping or recreating (if deleted)
153:
745:
By "External cites to The
Astronomical Review", I'm referring to external scholarly journals citing to the external Astronomical Review journal, which goes into determining the
800:
114:
221:
661:
if articles within
Knowledge (XXG) cited to The Astronomical Review, but there doesn't seem to be much usage of The Astronomical Review within Knowledge (XXG) per
119:
87:
82:
91:
74:
803:. Perhaps 5 to 20 citation dynamic links may justify a redirect. For The Astronomical Review topic, it lacks enough reference material to meet
788:
Knowledge (XXG) should have an article on the journal, at least a stub, for at least
Knowledge (XXG) purposes. For example, I recently created
673:. External cites to The Astronomical Review would go towards make the collective event of citing to The Astronomical Review notable for a
460:
444:
291:
464:
174:
255:
17:
141:
539:
382:
808:
654:
754:
674:
135:
866:
847:
824:
778:
740:
724:
710:
694:
645:
620:
603:
581:
543:
512:
493:
447:
429:
411:
386:
357:
328:
299:
278:
235:
213:
56:
40:
761:
wrote about how all these other scholarly journals are citing to The
Astronomical Review journal), but still wouldn't
131:
246:
Aside from the notability debate, there appears to be an issue with disambiguation. A quick online search reveals
78:
841:
734:
704:
508:
425:
407:
259:
181:
766:
682:
670:
70:
62:
720:
641:
489:
456:
295:
209:
287:
666:
399:
345:
251:
200:
862:
789:
716:
637:
485:
452:
324:
205:
36:
820:
774:
690:
535:
378:
147:
395:
837:
730:
700:
504:
421:
403:
247:
167:
559:
309:
53:
616:
353:
231:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
861:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
190:
New journal established last year, too young to have become notable yet. Not included in any
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
320:
812:
804:
796:
762:
678:
658:
629:
477:
417:
195:
816:
770:
686:
527:
416:
Per the relist request for non-essay rationales, I would add that I think this also fails
370:
274:
758:
750:
662:
440:
366:
348:
guideline, and material is closely related to SETI Institute, so merger is appropriate.
594:
572:
341:
699:...how does citing within Wikipeida establish notability in any way, shape or form? -
633:
481:
746:
612:
349:
227:
108:
522:
269:
562:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
312:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
263:
677:
article (assuming third parties covered the topic), but still wouldn't
815:
or even justify a redirect. These are strong reasons to delete. --
807:
and is not being used enough within
Knowledge (XXG) to even meet a
521:
SJ is the older essay, having been developed jointly by myself and
855:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
753:. Such impact factor topic would be covered in the topic
793:
104:
100:
96:
166:
801:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
653:- I could see keeping The Astronomical Review via a
569:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
319:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
180:
344:article. Journal does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s
811:lowest possible bar for scholarly journals under
657:lowest possible bar for scholarly journals under
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
869:). No further edits should be made to this page.
792:, which has 60+ (?) whatlinkshere article links.
480:. In the present case, we also need to discard
8:
222:list of Science-related deletion discussions
220:Note: This debate has been included in the
628:And the nom clearly states that this fails
769:topic itself as a stand alone article. --
219:
632:. So much so even, that this also fails
260:List of LGBT periodicals#United States
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
755:Citations to The Astronomical Review
675:Citations to The Astronomical Review
398:and per lack of evidence of passing
266:doesn't seem to mention that name).
685:topic as a stand alone article. --
24:
809:Knowledge (XXG):Scholarly journal
655:Knowledge (XXG):Scholarly journal
256:this apparently renamed LGBT mag
478:any consideration of notability
194:major databases. Does not meet
1:
248:this New Zealand publication
729:Ahhh, I see now, thanks. -
346:academic journal notability
886:
848:21:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
825:13:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
779:13:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
741:21:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
725:17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
711:17:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
695:15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
430:19:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
57:00:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
858:Please do not modify it.
646:07:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
621:06:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
604:05:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
582:05:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
544:22:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
513:19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
494:08:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
448:11:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
412:19:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
387:11:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
358:04:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
329:00:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
300:19:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
279:09:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
236:18:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
214:06:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
767:The Astronomical Review
683:The Astronomical Review
671:The Astronomical Review
369:applies here, I think.—
71:The Astronomical Review
63:The Astronomical Review
795:The magazine exceeds
790:Orange Coast Magazine
465:few or no other edits
667:what links here link
467:outside this topic.
252:Astronomical Review
48:The result was
602:
584:
580:
542:
468:
439:. I agree that
385:
331:
290:comment added by
238:
225:
877:
860:
844:
737:
707:
601:
599:
592:
579:
577:
570:
568:
564:
534:
532:
450:
443:applies here. --
377:
375:
318:
314:
302:
272:
226:
185:
184:
170:
122:
112:
94:
34:
885:
884:
880:
879:
878:
876:
875:
874:
873:
867:deletion review
856:
846:
842:
739:
735:
709:
705:
595:
593:
573:
571:
557:
528:
371:
307:
285:
267:
127:
118:
85:
69:
66:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
883:
881:
872:
871:
851:
850:
840:
838:The Bushranger
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
733:
731:The Bushranger
703:
701:The Bushranger
648:
623:
606:
587:
586:
585:
566:
565:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
516:
515:
505:David Eppstein
497:
496:
470:
469:
434:
433:
432:
422:David Eppstein
404:David Eppstein
389:
360:
342:SETI Institute
334:
333:
332:
316:
315:
304:
282:
281:
240:
239:
188:
187:
124:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
882:
870:
868:
864:
859:
853:
852:
849:
845:
843:One ping only
839:
835:
832:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
791:
786:
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
749:mentioned in
748:
747:Impact factor
744:
743:
742:
738:
736:One ping only
732:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
717:Guillaume2303
714:
713:
712:
708:
706:One ping only
702:
698:
697:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
649:
647:
643:
639:
638:Guillaume2303
635:
631:
627:
624:
622:
618:
614:
610:
607:
605:
600:
598:
589:
588:
583:
578:
576:
567:
563:
561:
556:
555:
545:
541:
537:
533:
531:
524:
520:
519:
518:
517:
514:
510:
506:
501:
500:
499:
498:
495:
491:
487:
486:Guillaume2303
483:
479:
474:
473:
472:
471:
466:
462:
458:
454:
453:71.63.200.149
449:
446:
445:71.63.200.149
442:
438:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
414:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
390:
388:
384:
380:
376:
374:
368:
364:
361:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
336:
335:
330:
326:
322:
317:
313:
311:
306:
305:
303:
301:
297:
293:
292:71.63.200.149
289:
280:
276:
271:
265:
261:
257:
253:
250:(technically
249:
245:
242:
241:
237:
233:
229:
223:
218:
217:
216:
215:
211:
207:
206:Guillaume2303
203:
202:
197:
193:
183:
179:
176:
173:
169:
165:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
129:Find sources:
125:
121:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
857:
854:
833:
650:
625:
608:
596:
574:
558:
529:
436:
400:WP:NJournals
391:
372:
362:
337:
308:
286:— Preceding
283:
243:
201:WP:NJournals
198:
191:
189:
177:
171:
163:
156:
150:
144:
138:
128:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
663:this search
523:User:Drmies
463:) has made
321:Ron Ritzman
262:, although
258:(listed at
154:free images
817:Uzma Gamal
771:Uzma Gamal
757:(assuming
687:Uzma Gamal
597:Sandstein
575:Sandstein
530:S Marshall
396:WP:TOOSOON
373:S Marshall
863:talk page
834:Weak keep
228:• Gene93k
192:selective
37:talk page
865:or in a
560:Relisted
461:contribs
310:Relisted
288:unsigned
264:the site
115:View log
54:MuZemike
39:or in a
765:help a
681:help a
626:Comment
613:Carrite
350:NJ Wine
244:Comment
160:WP refs
148:scholar
88:protect
83:history
813:WP:GNG
805:WP:GNG
797:WP:GNG
763:WP:GNG
679:WP:GNG
659:WP:GNG
651:Delete
630:WP:GNG
418:WP:GNG
392:Delete
254:) and
196:WP:GNG
132:Google
92:delete
759:WP:RS
751:WP:SJ
441:WP:SJ
367:WP:SJ
340:into
338:Merge
270:Trevj
175:JSTOR
136:books
120:Stats
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
821:talk
775:talk
721:talk
691:talk
642:talk
634:WP:V
617:talk
609:Keep
509:talk
490:talk
482:WP:V
457:talk
437:Keep
426:talk
408:talk
394:per
363:Keep
354:talk
325:talk
296:talk
275:talk
232:talk
210:talk
168:FENS
142:news
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
52:. --
665:or
420:. —
365:.
268:--
199:or
182:TWL
117:•
113:– (
823:)
777:)
723:)
693:)
644:)
619:)
511:)
492:)
459:•
451:—
428:)
410:)
356:)
327:)
298:)
277:)
234:)
224:.
212:)
204:.
162:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
819:(
773:(
719:(
689:(
640:(
615:(
540:C
538:/
536:T
507:(
503:—
488:(
455:(
424:(
406:(
383:C
381:/
379:T
352:(
323:(
294:(
273:(
230:(
208:(
186:)
178:·
172:·
164:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
134:(
126:(
123:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.