Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acta Botanica Islandica


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom (me). Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Acta Botanica Islandica

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator with reason "nope". PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Withdrawn. Several of the points brought forward below are less than convincing. However, listing in Biological Abstracts and Biosis (inexplicably missed by MIAR), together with the two reviews in JSTOR push this over the bar, barely. As there are no other "delete" !votes, I am withdrawing this nom. --Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep NJournals is an essay, not a policy (and in any case argues that if the article is not kept, it should be moved to be about the publishing society, not deleted). This reputable journal was the national-level publication on an important scientific discipline, and is cited in numerous Wikipedia articles, on this and sister projects. It is the journal of first publication for multiple taxon names. It is not clear why the nominator mistakenly believes that the European Ocean Biodiversity Information System, the European node of the Ocean Biodiversity Information System, itself adopted as a project under UNESCO, is not an independent source. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: none of the above is a policy-based argument. If you don't want to use NJournals (which is designed to make it easier for journals), fine, then we get to GNG. Eurobis basically only lists the journal title, Agris is simply a library record and doesn't give much more info. They may be independent, but you need a lot of fantasy to regard these as "in-depth sources" that pass GNG (or any other guideline you may want to apply). --Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: as a totally irrelevant aside: clicking on "link" above shows that "numerous" equals 11 25 (including non-linked instances). Of course, had it been 25,000, it still would not mean anything for notability. What happens on sister projects is also irrelevant here. Just smoke and mirrors. --Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You misrepresent what say ("numerous Wikipedia articles, on this and sister projects"), egregiously. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Criterion 1 "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area" Yes, in the field if Icelandic botany, it was. Criterion 2 "The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources." Yes, since the journal includes the first description of many new species, all work in other journals on those species will follow a citation-trail back to this journal. Criterion 3 "The journal is historically important in its subject area." again, in the limited subject area of Icelandic botany, it is. So it passes on all three criteria when only one would have been enough. We have to be a bit careful about "frequently" (Icelandic botany is of limited interest to an average shopper in an English-speaking street; the subject area means that citations won't be as frequent as they would in medicine; but the journal should be considered in the context of its field, not out of context). We also have to be careful of "is"; the guidelines should include "was", since a journal that was notable in its day remains notable after it ceases to exist. This is an ex-journal, long since pining for the Fjords, so it's not surprising that it's not well-covered by modern databases. Elemimele (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Question "...considered by reliable sources...": which reliable sources???? "...frequently cited...": GScholar gives a smattering of citations to some articles, but nothing that I would consider "frequently". "...historically important...": any sources for this apart from your own judgment? "...not well-covered by modern databases...": that's a strong point arguing against notability => no sources, no article. --Randykitty (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * fair questions. Do you have access to Webofscience? Since Acta Botanica Islandica is included in WoS, it's possible to check who's cited it there. I looked at the journal itself, which can be found at the Icelandic Institute of Natural History, and picked a few articles more-or-less at random. Some, like Caram and Jonsson "Nouvel inventaire des algues marines de l'Islande" (1972) are incorrectly entered into WoS as merely "Acta Bot", but the article is clearly in this journal and has been cited 31 times, by such journals as Botany, Eur. J. Phycology, Nordic Journal of Botany, Journal of Phycology etc.; i.e. not Nature, but reasonably solid stuff at the level you'd expect for a rather niche botanical journal. Note that the title is in French; this journal has published in a hotch-potch of languages, which really doesn't help with citation searching. I searched a few other articles too; mostly low citation rates, but in solid places (e.g. Hallgrimsson 1987, cited only twice in Mycological Progress and Persoonia, Munda 2004 cited twice in Ecology and Evolution). We're not talking top-level stuff here, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. This is admittedly a minor journal in a niche area, because Iceland is a niche area, and Botany is, to most people, a niche subject. As for modern databases, remember modern databases are there to serve modern science to modern scientists; they're not there to provide a historical record of the foundations on which modern science was built (and curation of the addition of old papers to modern databases is very patchy). Back in the days of Acta Botanica Islandica, the primary way to find out information was to go down to the library a few times a week, and pick up real paper journals off the shelf and read them. Science Citation Index was a scary thing that you used in desperation to make sure that you hadn't missed something obscure before submitting your PhD thesis, very cutting edge! We shouldn't judge old journals by 2021 standards. We have a duty to provide some sort of historical record of the world even pre-1990. It was never a huge journal, but it was a decent brick in the wall of human knowledge. If you suppress enough bricks, no one can see the wall any more. Elemimele (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Further reliable sources have been added to the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Perhaps we are being too selective here and WP:NJOURNALS should be expanded to cover journals like this one, as long as predatory journals can be kept out. . This page says it is in Biological Abstracts. If you search for other names beginning with Acta botanica, you may find some other journals worth listing such as Acta botanica Silesiaca from Poland or Acta botánica mexicana from Mexico. Acta Botanica Fennica from Finland and apparently listed in Scopus https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15756567 also looks interesting. Perhaps discussions about expanding the notability criteria should take place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also listed in International Plant Names Index at https://www.ipni.org/p/1638-2 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.