Talk:Besoiro

	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.

Notability[edit]

As Besoiro has hardly any citations to it in Google Scholar, I suggest it fails to meet the criteria of WP:Notability (periodicals). Fæ (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's circulation is very low and it is evidently self-published ("printed on an ink jet"). However, about 100 new taxa were described in it and that seems rather notable. --Crusio (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there are independent reliable sources that recognize these as new taxa (rather than, say, new names for previously recognized taxa) then the claim of 100 new taxa is somewhat circular and fails verifiability. Fæ (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way zoological nomenclature works. For a description to be valid, all that is necessary is a publication satisfying certain rules. It may be a century before somebody else looks at the question whether these are indeed separate species or not... As long as nobody says otherwise, these descriptions are assumed to be completely new species. If zoological taxonomists work that way, I don't think it would be effective (or even possible) for WP to do otherwise. --Crusio (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, the rationale for notability against WP:NMAG is that this publication is notable because it says it is notable. Not sure that would stand up well in an AfD. Fæ (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw WP:NMAG today for the first time (and my edits are 90% to academic journals, looks like people have managed to keep that proposal carefully hidden :-). It looks like something cobbled together by a few editors and it has no standing at all. At this point, WP:Notability (academic journals) (which is much more specifically geared for journals like this one), is not a guideline either and it looks like the only "official" guideline is WP:GNG. Which almost all academic journals fail, of course. At AfD consensus has mostly gone towards the spirit of WP:NJournals, but I admit that it is not clear that this journal would meet even that standard. All I wanted to say above is that this is the source for over a hundred taxa (which are automatically notable and I am pretty sure this journal would be judged a [[WP:RS|reliable source for that) and it is then a bit starnge to rule the journal that published all these taxa non-notable. Can't say that I'm decided myself at this point, perhaps an Afd would indeed give some clarity here. Alternatively, we can just let it stand, it's not promotional or trivial nonsense or such, so what's the harm... --Crusio (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article with {{Notability}} and I'm happy to let that ride for a while to remind people to address the issue of notability. One way of addressing this is to show where other more widely recognized publications cite this journal, hopefully this can improve in the near future. As you say, there is no particular urgency due to copyright, misrepresentation or advertising. Fæ (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word about my page on Besoiro. I understand you must pay attention to everything that is published is the most serious possible. Circulation today means little because, as you can get .avi and .mp3 on the web, .pdf files are easily available also. About two authors I personaly know, Hughes Bomans is just the best specialist on Lucanidae in the world, his collection recently acquired by the Natural History Museum. He described a huge quantity of beetles new to science in more "offical" publications, the reason why he prefers now Besoiro is the fact he can publish his descriptions very quickly (2 to 3 weeks), the others publications asking for at least 6 months (Lambillionae more than one year). Patrick Arnaud is the world specialist on Phanaeus (with the american Edmonds), he has published the revision of this genus in The Beetles of the World, volume 28. All the new species were described in Besoiro. I intend to continue to produce new pages in Wikipedia on entomological journals I know. One of the next will be the "Bulletin de la Société des Lépidoptéristes Français", very well printed, with a circulation about 250, but far less important for an entomolologist than "Besoiro".Jacqueshb (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also consider how well cited they are which may help determine notability. In this case I found very little evidence of the journal being cited by other academics. Fæ (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is to be expected, taxonomy is a field with very low citation density. Even the best taxonomy journals have rather low impact factors, for example. --Crusio (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some references, I hope all will be o.k; nowJacqueshb (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]