Talk:ChemRxiv

Notability
I added the notability tag to the article because, when I first looked at it, I thought it was a likely candidate for G7 deletion. There is no assertion of notability and the only references are to publications by the site itself and one of its parent organizations. I could see a redirect to American Chemical Society, as an alternative to deletion.

This issue becomes important when other organizations try to use this stub of an article as a model for their draft.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added independent references from unaffiliated organizations (Nature, Chem2W; in the second you'll actually find me quoted, but I don't think this qualifies as COI). Since then, two more societies joined, and more independent coverage shows up. Please have a look. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , definitely improvements, but I don't consider the notability issue as addressed.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not? When I browsed news.google.com there are very many news items where preprints on ChemRxiv are cited. But I do not think it makes sense to add all those. What alternatives do you see that demonstrates the notability? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I also just found that some 40-50 ChemRxiv preprints are cited in the English Wikipedia. Does that help in any way? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, no, that's pretty irrelevant. What's missing for notability is significant coverage of the organization itself; what the organization actually does, however much good (or bad) it does in the world, can only be written about based on what sources say about it.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So, give me a number: how many independent source does it need to be notable? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)