Talk:Skandinavskii sbornik

Notability
The notability tag has been removed and several sources added. However, those sources at best represent in-passing mentions (ref 1 is just a mention where the journal can be found in a certain library, that's the first time I've ever seen anything like that...). I am going to restore the notability tag and, if no real sources can be found in the next few days, will take this to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 is a reliable source as to the year it was established, nothing to do with where it is found. There is a detailed discussion of the journal (far from passing mentions) in the Journal of Baltic Studies, and what about The Nordic and Baltic Studies Review who say that its contribution to the "development of the Nordic studies in the USSR and its successor states is hard to overestimate"? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 tells you on what shelves the journal is found in that library. As for the starting date, I'd never accept a reference like that as reliable, library catalogs are notoriously prone to mistakes. As for the others, I don't think that establishes notability. The Nordic etc review is a journal that was established in 2016, and whether its opinions have any impact remains to be seen. It is also difficult to see whether it actually is independent. In any case, it most certainly is not notable itself yet. If this is the best you can find, we'll have to go to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 is there purely to establish a starting date and UCL is a RS for that information. Sources don't have to be notable to be reliable, as you know. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Deceptive article
This is one of the most deceptively-sourced articles that I have seen in a long time. The only reason that I am not taking this to AfD is one single reference (currently reference 9). Apart from that, this is a big collection of WP:SYNTH. In-passing mentions are drummed up to be important happenings (the whole Lomonosov thing, just one example), based on hot air. Reference 12 is a link to our article on EBSCO, who knows why. The text should be purged of this kind of puffery, based on interpretations of the sources, not the sources itself (i.e., synthesis). --Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a generalised assertion. Please state specifically what in the article is not supported by the sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If you can't see that most of this article is drummed up fluff based on shaky references (starting with the ridiculous very first one), making this out to be much more than it is, I can't help that. It's articles like this that make me think more and more that I am wasting my time on WP. At this point, I am un-watching every article that pops-up on my watchlist (and that now includes this one), which is already one-third smaller than last week. Soon, I'll be gone. Do whatever you like with this article, I don't care any more. --Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)