Talk:Brief Chronicles

Untitled
I would suggest that this article falls under the wikipedia development policy for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals. It is an academic journal with an accredited board of Phd holders. I'm also a bit confused. A few days ago, I created Cahiers Élisabéthains. It has no more secondary sources listed than the present entry. But rather than being marked for deletion, it received this notice:

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. Stub-Class article Stub 	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. Gnome-mime-text-x-credits.svg This article has been marked as needing an infobox. See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Why is it that one academic journal is immediately recognized but the other is required to justify itself? Does wikipedia practice some hidden form of redlining? I appreciate some clarification on this. Thanks.--BenJonson (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith. There are bots that crawl all over wiki dropping templates in do particular order! In the meantime, add some references, some links, link to the website, etc. and then you can remove the "no references" tag, as well as the other one. Just beef it up and add some references!

Thanks!--BenJonson (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was me who tagged Cahiers Élisabéthains for WPJournals, I only just now found this article and have tagged it similarly. There is one important difference between the two journals: Cahiers Élisabéthains was established in 1972 and I therefore gave it the benefit of the doubt and did not tag it for notability. This journal is new and has only 1 issue published and therefore cannot yet meet any notability requirements. I will propose it for deletion in a moment (via PROD), if the prod tag is removed without adequate proof of notability, I will take it to AfD (deletion discussion). --Crusio (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Greetings. I object to the deletion based on criteria 1: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field. ". I think having achieved listings in both the MLA and the World Shakespeare Bibliography satisfies this criteria. Wouldn't you agree?. (I only removed the tag becasue that is what the instructions say to do. If this is in error, please let me know. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stephen, I see that you are making the same objection I am, only you are citing chapter and verse from the notability rules. Your argument is compelling in part because it refers to specific content, while Crusio's objection that the journal "cannot" have notability because only one issue has been published, seems to be inventing a rule not in evidence on the notability page. I think that Crusio should respond to these points if he wants the deletion tag restored.--BenJonson (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Crusio,

Thanks for the explanation of your action. I would not remove the tag without discussion and some agreement first. I don't see anything in the notability section which sets a standard for how long a journal has been in operation. You state that the article "does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N.}}" and because it is new "cannot yet meet any notability requirements." But the journal is abstracted by both MLA and the World Shakespeare Bibliography. Doesn't that constitute "notability"? And if that is not good enough, what would constitute "notability" for an academic journal? I ask in part because I can guarantee that the notability of this particular publication is just starting. It will grow substantially over the next few years. Best regards, --BenJonson (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny to have my own words thrown back at me (I wrote that notability guideline :-). I am not sure what the "MLA" is, because you link to a disambiguation page. How important listing in the WSB is depends on how discerning that database is. If it simply includes anything to do with The Bard, then it doesn't mean much. As for your guarantee that the journal will grow in notability, I have nor reason not to believe you. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not accept such assurances without an independent reliable source. --Crusio (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Crusio, and a good policy it seems to be. One of the things you may need to learn is that, as a lawmaker, you are subject to your own laws. I appreciate your candor in admitting that you don't know what MLA is, but I'm also stunned that you feel empowered to dictate on matters of academic notability without knowing something so fundamental to that practice. You write: "If it simply includes anything to do with The Bard, then it doesn't mean much." No, it does not, as Stephen has clarified for you. MLA is simply the most important professional organization in the academic humanities. For your information, I might add that MLA and the World Shakespeare Bibliography constitute the very definition of "independent reliable sources." According to Wikipedia, the latter was "named as an Outstanding Academic Title by Choice Magazine," which is THE leading journal for librarians and purchasers of academic books. If you like, I would be happy to supply you with the email of Dr. Harner, at the University of Texas, who is the editor of the World Shakespeare Bibliography, and he can inform you as to his standards for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenJonson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the guideline never was accepted, so it is only an "essay" at this point. The real guideline that has to be satisfied therefore is WP:N. In any case, emails from editors don't help. What would help is if you could provide a reference on the inclusion criteria of MLA. If those show that they are very selective, that would clinch the matter. As you may have seen, it has already swayed one other editor (Drmies) at the AfD. --Crusio (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a brief follow on: I was not asking you to accept my assurance of the journal's future prospects for the purpose of this discussion. I was just informing you of my prediction, and I'd be happy to revisit that prediction in a year, two years, or five years. My position is that by the definitions offered in your own criteria, as Smarprt has indicated, the journal meets the standards for notability. You have not really answered any of the points he's made. Now that you know what MLA and the World Shakespeare Bibliography are, are you willing to reconsider your position?--BenJonson (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are sources for this selectivity, I'll certainly withdraw the AfD. --Crusio (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Crusio - will this help answer your questions:


 * "The MLA International Bibliography is the most widely distributed humanities database, being the pre-eminent reference work in the fields of literature, language, linguistics, folklore, ethno-musicology, and teaching."


 * "The World Shakespeare Bibliography is sponsored by the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C., edited by Professor James Harner at Texas A&M University, and published by Johns Hopkins University Press. The online version is located at www.worldshakesbib.org. Smatprt (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephen. --BenJonson (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion over whether to keep this page, and who has helped to improve it even while the discussion proceeded. --BenJonson (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Smith
This name requires disambiguation. The current link points to another Sarah Smith. This one is the well known author and Harvard PhD. I will work on this as time permits.