Talk:Arctic Anthropology

PROD
While I understand the importance of credibility, I am confused as to why Arctic Anthropology is subject for deletion when it had been already approved. With all do respect, I find the lack of real communication between the Wikipedia editors and the original author disheartening and would very much appreciate feedback that does not suggest I follow a link that leads to another link that leads to a long winded article that has been directed to another link in order to understand how to follow these guidelines.

If you would like to know where I received my sources and which 'template' I followed, I would be more than happy to enclose said information.

Press Stevens (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies for the confusion. The submission at AfC was accepted in spite of source issues (which isn't supposed to happen, but it occasionally does).  The issue is that there is no claim to notability.  The easiest fix is to find two independent, reliable sources (relevant guide is at WP:RS).  Preferably, add them in as inline citations (like the one that is there already).  Because it is a PROD (PROposed Deletion), you can contest it by simply deleting the tag from the top of the article.  (Note that this is only acceptable with a PROD.)  Ideally, the issue should be fixed first, but that is not a requirement.  If you need any help, feel free to let me know.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I also apologise for the back and forth. I understand it's frustrating, but Wikipedia is not a single block of editors, there are many of us and we sometimes (often) disagree. We do try to communicate, although practically it often has to be through slightly bureaucratic processes like "AfC" and "PROD", and if you get sent to lengthy guidelines and policies it's only because the same issues tend to crop up again and again and those pages represent the well worn consensus.
 * I have added some sources to the article and removed the PROD (but someone else may still nominate it for deletion via the longer process). There were two serious problems with this article that meant it shouldn't have been accepted as it was:


 * 1) There were no sources apart from the journals official website, and therefore no independent indication of notability
 * 2) More seriously, almost the entire text was copied from the description of the journal on their website. Although it may seem harmless, this is a copyright violation. Text from other sources, unless you are sure it is public domain, should never be directly copied to Wikipedia articles.
 * The person who originally reviewed your submission should have highlighted these issues and explained how to fix them before they accepted the article. It's because they didn't that you're now getting contradictory messages.
 * The journal is, in my opinion, notable (per the WP:GNG and as explained in the WP:NJournals essay) and now the above issues have been addressed the article should be fine. Please don't let this slight cock up stop you from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia! joe&bull;roet&bull;c 08:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if I seemed difficult. Surely you can understand where some of my frustration comes from. However, I do greatly appreciate the help editors have given me, and I will do my best to make sure I cover all the citation guidelines in the future. Just to clarify, the Arctic Anthropology journal is now safe from deletion? Press Stevens (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing is ever completely safe from deletion. (Even the main page has been deleted.  There is not any attempt underway at the moment to delete it.  In essence, it is as safe as any article.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have updated the impact factor and added an independent reference for that. As far as I know, no journal with an IF has ever been deleted. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)