User talk:Artmarichka

Welcome!
Hello, Artmarichka, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Modern phytomorphology, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Modern phytomorphology


The article Modern phytomorphology has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi,User:Randykitty! I impoved a page of Modern Phytomorphology and added links and list of the most important databases where this journal is indexed or abstracted. As you can see, it is really not indexed in such commercial giants as Thomson Reuters Master List or Scopus, however it is already indexed in many other independent databases. In particular, in Index Copernicus this journal is rating on the more or less the same level as Romanian journal Contributii Botanice, Polish Acta Biologica Cracoviensia seria Botanica , Actae Palaeobotanica , Fragmenta Floristica and Geobotanica Polonica , or the central Ukrainian botanical journal - Ukrainian Botanical Journal. So, I believe that Modern Phytomorphology is not less important and is, maybe not so far as commercial giants, but notable. If you agree with me, please remove the proposal for deletion. Artmarichka (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Dear User:RandykittyVery strange position about Index Copernicus. Would you please provide any reasonable background for such you considerations? Do you know that Index Copernicus is the main Polish indexation system which now cooperate with Polish goverment and they integrate their Master List with Polish govermental evaluation of scientific sources. So, all scientists in Poland now are evaluated on the base of data provided by Index Copernicus (but not only, of course). Secondly, what you have against CAB, DOAJ or China govermental database CNKI? Can you please provide more arguments? Artmarichka (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that inclusion in Index Copernicus is more a negative thing than a positive one... None of the databases that you have added to the article are selective in the sense of our inclusion criteria. Like any editor, you may remove the PROD template. In that case, however, I'll open a deletion discussion and if an article is deleted after such a discussion, re-creation is more complicated if the journal meets the inclusion criteria at some point in the future. So unless you have evidence that the journal meets WP:NJournals (or WP:GNG), it would be better if you let the deletion proceed. --Randykitty (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The information in Index Copernicus is contributed by its users and is therefore not a reliable source (in the WP sense). As for its index ("IC Value"), please see the reference in our article (Index Copernicus). Most high profile journals are not in IC, but many predatory journals are. I have nothing against DOAJ, it's quite respectable. However, it strives to include every OA journal (except for the really predatory ones), meaning that inclusion in it is nothing special (i.e., it is not selective in the sense of WP:NJournals). This also goes for the other databases that you mention.
 * WP cannot include everything, so we have inclusion criteria. Only subjects that meet these criteria get an article. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but in all databases, even Scopus or Thomson Reuters running, data are provided by users. And then, on the base of this provided data and taking in cosideration other criteria, the journals are evaluated. In Index Copernicus, situation is the same, with only difference that IC covers huger area. And IC is selective because: a) it does not include all; b) even if it included predatory journals most of them later were or will be (if still not) excluded; c) low-quality journals have lower ratting (so quality of journal is evaluating independently of provided information by users); d) it is supported by Polish goverment as I told. Also please take into consideration that TR, for example, also trying to wide the are introducing last year Emerging Source Citation Index. Scopus, as it seems, is on the same way. So, IC is selective just as TR and IC. DOAJ is also selective because in case of providing of incorrect information, absence of license, or providing of predatory policy, the journals are excluded. Going far, CNKI is selective too, even it does not provide scores for journals. CNKI do not include all jurnals, but only that which have good publishing history and are not predatory/scam. The same situation with EBSCO and CABI. So, Modern Phytomorphology is not predatory, because it is already in this databases (and in taxanomical databases IPNI and AlgaBase too). In 2014 Modern Phytomorphology have got 69.21 points in Index Copernicus what is, as I told, on the level with other well known Central European botanical journals. While predatory journal was not evaluated at all. Finally, Modern Phytomorphology was accepted and included in Polish govermental indexation system POL-index which is also selective. So when you tell that Modern Phytomorphology is not-notable and is not included in selective databases, you are going with only your own personal suggestion. There no list of databases where journal should be included before including in WP WP:NJournals. And MP corresponds to criteria provided by WP, so how you decide that Modern Phytomorphology shall not? Artmarichka (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC) I think that in this case Wp should change the rules and strictly write in WP:NJournals that WP accepts only journals indexed in Scopus and/or TR ISI. And that journals which indexed/databased in other similar sources are not for considerations. In other way, there always will be subjective opinion of some people, nothing more. And you understand and know this. The words like "some selection" and "more selective" are your own opinion, nothing more. WP declares unpersonalazid edition and content, when there can not be used such criteria as "some", "less" or "more". Just show me where it is written that the journal can not be included with such databasing as is, and I will stop. Before this, it is just personal point of view. While mine one can be different and it is. I removed deletion tag and you can open discussion - will see what other community members (if this members are not your releable friends of course?) will tell. Artmarichka (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but all that is incorrect. Scopus and TR carry out an in-depth evaluation of journals before including them. This includes information like how often other journals cite articles in a journal under consideration, which most definitely is not "data provided by users". You are right that databases like DOAJ have some degree of selectivity. DOAJ, for example, does not accept journals that are not peer-reviewed or are not open access. But those are fairly basic things and as long as a journal fulfills those basic criteria, they are accepted. Scopus and TR are much more selective. Being included in those databases means that a journal belongs in the top of its field. In the end, of course, it doesn't matter what you or I think. What matters is what reliable sources say. And the available sources say that IC is unreliable and the ICV is bogus. I happen to agree with that, but in the end that is irrelevant. Feel free to remove the PROD tag and we'll go to AfD and see what the community thinks. However, I have years of experience with articles on academic journals here on WP and I cannot offer you much hope. Have a look at previous debates (an archive with links to discussions is here). Community consensus has consistently been that inclusion in DOAJ or IC does not contribute to notability of a journal. Neither do CABI or EBSCO. And, in any case, please read the guidelines and policies that I have linked to in my above comments, they may help you understand how WP works. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to start a discussion on the talkpage of WP:NJournals to try to convince the community to change their stance. I have opened an AFD and you are welcome to give your opinion there. --Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Modern phytomorphology


A tag has been placed on Modern phytomorphology requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://journals.indexcopernicus.com/Suchasna+Fitomorfologia,p12524,3.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick (Talk)  12:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Modern phytomorphology for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Modern phytomorphology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Modern phytomorphology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)