Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problems of Onomastics


 * 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. I think I need to say something to Dcs002 on their argument that policy does not mandate deletion of an article for which notability has not been proven. Indeed it doesn't, but once an article has been brought to AfD evidence of notability is then required to be presented. Dcs002 further argues that this procedure is a result of "habit" rather than policy. The misunderstanding here, I think, is that policy on Wikipedia is a result of consensus in practice. In other words, the policy is a summary of practice, rather than practice being determined by policy. There is no doubt in my mind that if this issue was put to an RfC to clarify policy the result would overwhelmingly be that deletion must follow a failure to show notability at an AfD. But in any case, such an exercise is not necessary, the principle is already in the deletion policy: "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." I am therefore inclined to give less weight to Dcs002's argument and the result would have been "delete" were it not for the "keep" arguments presented by others. SpinningSpark 23:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Problems of Onomastics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook  06:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 *  Keep Merge with Russian Language Institute. (Changed on July 31 - see Mark viking's comments below, though I think it merits more than a mention in that page, which itself needs to be expanded IMO.) This is the most widely held journal of onomastics in the Russian language among the four listed in Worldcat. It is also indexed in the Index Copernicus. That seems to satisfy criterion #1 (as well as caveat #2 regarding stub status) in WP:NJournals. (Though the journal's homepage shows it indexed in EBSCO, it is not as of today in the EBSCO list.) But onomastics seems to be a pretty small field, as there are only 51 total onomastics journals listed in Worldcat in any language. Still, it appears to be a legitimate, peer-reviewed academic journal. It has a typical submission process and ethics standard. I do not have access to journals anymore since I left my last research job, so I can't provide any RS other than the free indexing information, but I think there is enough available that it should be kept as a stub in need of a lot of help. I'd think someone with access to the journals could easily find RS that reference the journal or its content. I say fix it, don't delete it. Dcs002 (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment WorldCat listings are unreliable and their use here is not generally accepted. Index Copernicus is useless: any publisher who wants can enter its journals into the database (and most serious publishers don't bother, so you won't find journals like Nature or Science in there). "Fix it, don't delete it" is fine, but this has been around for a long time and still nobody has been able to come up with any evidence of notability. So unless you can find some sources, your !vote above does not adequately address the issue. --Randykitty (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I followed the guidelines as precisely as I could (given in WP:NJournals and others - more below), and that is what led me to Worldcat - it's right there in WP:NJournals.


 * Saying "nobody has been able to come up with any evidence of notability" is very different from saying no one has actually done so, and I think the latter is the case here. It is a world apart from saying the subject is not notable. I see no evidence in it's brief edit history or talk page that anyone has tried very hard or had the expertise in the field to source its notability. (I see you have participated though, and I don't mean to dismiss your work on the article.) Have any linguists participated? Anyone who has access to this actual journal? All over the WP guidelines I see constant repetition of the notion that articles that look like they could be notable should not be deleted, but fixed or tagged as stubs or whatever. Also that alternatives to deletion are much preferable to deletion. Notability has to do with notability in the world, not popularity among WP editors, so the fact that people in this field or with this interest haven't come by to fix this article in 3 1/2 years is not a reason to delete it. It needs help and it's gonna take a long time before it gets it. There is no expiration date, nor compelling reason to get rid of something because it has had so little activity.


 * I'm a (retired) neuroscientist (you can tell because I have time to write such lengthy comments), and I have no real experience with liberal arts journals or indices. I lived on Index Medicus and then Medline/PubMed. But I was following the guidelines as precisely as I could (given in WP:NJournals, which says that if any one of three criteria is "substantiated through independent reliable sources, it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article." The first criterion says "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." Then #6 under Notes and examples names Worldcat specifically, saying the following:
 * For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat. Other sources can be found on the book sources page, at the Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog, or at the Zeitschriftendatenbank) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. Data on library holdings need to be interpreted in the light of what can be expected for the specific subject. (My emphasis. Of the four Russian language onomastics journals, this one is by far the most widespread, and the only one available in more than print format, according to Worldcat.)


 * That is why I used Worldcat. It's in the guidelines, so I assumed I was on safe footing. Now under the WP: Deletion Policy, WP:DEL-REASON, the following is the closest pertinent reason given in the policy that would apply to this article: "7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." Have there been thorough attempts over the years? I didn't see any evidence of that. This policy does not list old articles that have not yet been improved as a reason for deletion. So to me it looks like, according to WP: Deletion Policy, the appropriate remedy is not deletion, but the tagging recommended on that page for the reasons listed:
 * stub for a short article
 * refimprove for lack of verifiability
 * The WP: Deletion Policy page says these tags "are intended to warn the readers and to allow interested editors to easily locate and fix the problems," and "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." IMO, this journal shows all the signs of notability if someone with better access than I have gathered the RS necessary. IMO, that is what stub class is for, as well as the refimprove tag.


 * Following this process, and for the reasons given (and having no personal interest in this field or in the outcome), I still see "Keep" as the appropriate !vote for me, keep and tag. (I'm not the guy to fixit because I have pretty much exhausted my knowledge and resources on the topic.) Was my process a bit off somehow? Is there a reason you think a more "selective database" is necessary when the consensus-derived deletion policy suggests Worldcat is adequate? (I am also very new to these AFD discussions.) Unless there are circumstances that amplify the urgency of deletion beyond what is stated in the recommended guidelines and policies, I see no objective basis for deleting any article. Because something can be deleted doesn't mean it should be deleted. Notability is not demonstrated clearly here, granted, but IMO there is a real likelihood that it could be established. All the signs are there. It costs nothing to let an article sit as a stub or start class with a tag. To me, deleting an article is a grave undertaking. I don't like to erase things without a compelling reason. This article suffers from neglect, not a fundamental lack of notability. Dcs002 (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Index Copernicus evaluates journals for quality See their methodology here:, and of their 120+ listed linguistics journals, it ranks Problems of Onomastics at #11, with a score of 6.85. ("Index Copernicus Value", ICV, basis. For comparison, #1 is 9.00, #30 is 6.16.) Not too shabby it seems for a journal that is penalized for not being in the English language and for having only 2 issues per year. Currently, out of their entire list of 10,409 journals, from all disciplines, Problems of Onomastics is in a 10-way tie for being ranked 440th. Really, I think this article just needs some TLC at some point. Dcs002 (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * CommentWhen I say that "nobody has been able to come up with any evidence of notability", that really also means that nobody has actually done so... It is logically impossible to prove that something is not notable, but that is not necessary and turning things on their head: in order for something to be included in WP, we have to prove that it is notable. If that cannot be shown, an article is deleted, if not, we could do away with PROD and AFD. Now WorldCat: yes, it's in NJournals, but its use is somewhat controversial. For instance, when I click the OCLC or ISSN links in the infobox in the article, WorldCat does not indicate a single library holding this journal, not even when I specifically request all Russian libraries holding it. So if you cannot "fixit", and I cannot find anything supporting notability, what is the policy-based reason to keep this? Just a hunch that it perhaps might be notable? Sorry, but that is not sufficient. As for Index Copernicus: their "evaluation" is just a computer program that calculates a score based on information provided by publishers (or anybody who cares to set up an account). Their criteria are decidedly weird (for example, journals get extra points if they have structured abstracts...) IC is, in short, absolutely not a reliable source and nobody I know cares in the least about what IC says (or not says) about their journal(s). --Randykitty (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you. First, the OCLC and the eISSN were both incorrect in the article. I just corrected them. I had no problem locating this journal in Worldcat. I found no Russian libraries listed though, mostly libraries around the US, and some in the UK and Germany. (Remember, it only lists holdings in participating libraries.) Here's my search result: Or go to the article now and click the OCLC link.


 * I understand what you are saying about the limitations of IC and Worldcat, but that doesn't exclude them as RS. They themselves are notable, reliable, and independent. I presume Worldcat, despite its limitations, is notable, reliable, and independent because it is recommended in the consensus-based NJournals. IC is certainly notable because the editorial boards of 10,409 journals actually have gone through their submission process, reliable meaning there seems to be no reason to think they are academically dubious or dishonest - they list their methods clearly - and I think it's a stretch to think they would be unreliable if 10,409 journals are laying their credibility on the line by actively requesting inclusion and ICV evaluation, and independent in that they have designed their review and scoring methodology independent of Problems of Onomastics. (It looks like a few journals might be gaming the scoring though. I doubt the Journal of Onomastics is though, because they do not mention their score on their website.) These sources are at least something. This is a Russian language humanities journal. Indexing in that field is going to be different from indexing in the natural sciences. Worldcat and IC give reason for me to think this journal is most likely notable (and in themselves possibly satisfying notability on their own, per NJournals, in the minds of some editors), and that someone can find RS to answer the question directly. (Personally I very much prefer structured abstracts. It prevents rambling essays like my posts here, making them more readable.)


 * You ask "what is the policy-based reason to keep this?" I think that is the question that turns WP: Deletion Policy on its head. (I will give you a reason anyway - it does not satisfy the reasons given in the WP: Deletion Policy.) What is the reason for deleting it? Lack of demonstrated notability is a permissive criterion, not a directive. It may be deleted. But I see no positive reason to act on that. It fits none of the criteria in WP: Deletion Policy for why an article should be deleted, and that is also a policy. Notability is a policy for articles, yes. We must post articles on notable subjects. But if we can't verify notability because of lack of evidence cited in the article, the recommended remedy in WP: Deletion Policy is to tag it so readers know it is not up to WP standards, and so editors know it needs help. Do you have reason to doubt the journal is notable? Or are you only going on the lack of evidence provided? There is a major difference between those two as well. I personally see no reason to doubt its notability. I just don't see evidence in the article.


 * IMO, deletion is the step that needs to be justified here. What you have given in your argument are reasons that it is permitted to delete, not reasons why it should be deleted according to the WP: Deletion Policy. I think the inertia among WP editors has been to delete what content we may delete, and we have deleted far more than we should. There are essays about this - about the numerous articles that have been speedy deleted in particular that shouldn't have been. Dcs002 (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, so it seems we agree that the article as it currently stands shows no evidence of notability. Therefore, we need to find it in your above arguments (I'm not going to try to explain again that you interpretation of the deletion policy is completely off: once an article is at AFD it gets deleted unless notability can be established). You give two arguments: inclusion in the Index Copernicus and the WorldCat listings. 1/ IC: inclusion in this database is trivial and meaningless. It includes some predatory OA journals. In addition, it is on Jeffrey Beall's list of bogus metrics companies. 2/ Actually, bot OCLC numbers give identical results for me (and the eISSN still is not found in WorldCat): it lists 17 libraries, a rather dismally low number. ANd even that seems too high. The first hit is the "Bayerische Staatsbibliothek". If one clicks that link and goes to the library's own index, we see that it subscribed from 1973 to 1983, so it hasn't subscribed since over 30 years ago (this journal's predecessor, obviously). Let's try the Harvard Library... Nope, also the previous publication. At this point I stopped, because as I said, 17 is a dismal number. The last time I saw number of WorldCat listings used in an AfD debate, it was for a journal that had 400 listings. In short: there is not a shred of evidence that this journal even approaches our inclusion standards. Given your earlier remark about the desired participation of linguists, I have listed this on the linguistics AfD list. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge (selective merge) to Russian Language Institute. Contrary to Randykitty's assertion, some editors like myself do consider Worldcat holdings as contributing evidence toward notability. But in my opinion, Worldcat holdings are not quite enough by themselves to establish notability, as libraries can carry journals for many reasons other than importance. Other evidence toward notability is a mention of the journal in the article The History of Onomastics. I've also seen it claimed that the journal is indexed in the Russian Science Citation Index and was one of the approved journals by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Soviet Union, but I wasn't able to verify either claim--my Russian-fu is terrible. At this point, there isn't enough evidence of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NJournals for this article to survive standalone. But basic facts about the journal are verifiable, and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, verifiable information should be preserved, not deleted. The journal is sponsored by the Russian Language Institute--it would make sense to selectively merge a mention of the journal in that article. The topic is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted, too. --Mark viking (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark viking, thank you for your comments! Randykitty, thank you for inviting the people who know about language. I like the idea of merging with the Russian Language Institute, though that article is barely a stub of a stub. I'm guessing it's more notable than the Journal of Onasmatics, but this journal would be the only real content in that article. It really needs TLC! But as long as the meaningful content is not deleted unnecessarily, I agree with merging it, and I have changed my !vote above.


 * Randykitty, you said "once an article is at AFD it gets deleted unless notability can be established." This is the inertia I was talking about, and I don't see how it is policy-based. I think we are just used to operating that way for various, and IMO unfortunate, reasons. I don't see that process anywhere in the policy page WP:Deletion or in WP:AFD. WP:N says "For articles on subjects that are clearly not notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response..." (Emphasis added) That's a different standard than you're describing. As far as I can tell, we just seem to have fallen into that as a habit. Policies and guidelines are heavily aligned with preserving articles and content, and deleting only as a last resort. Dcs002 (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  19:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep (I would also accept a Merge, a/c ) . The criteria we have been using for academic journals work nicely for journals in the academic mainstream in the sciences; they do not work well for journals whose notability is primarily limited to a particular country. In almost all other fields at WP, national significance is all that is asked for. I think it should apply here also, and the fundamental reason is WP:Cultural bias. Otherwise we risk becoming only an encyclopedia of what is notable in the major English speaking countries, and such is not our intentions.   This journal is apparently part of the Russian academic mainstream, and therefore notable there; I consider this sufficient. I do not think there is however consensus among the very few of us working on academic journals about this, and would accept that in a period of unsettled consensus, a possible  way to go for the time being might be to find some sort of merge.  DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * DGG is correct that this is one of the few cases where we disagree, as I find his reasoning here too subjective and not based on sources. However, having said this, I certainly can live with a merge (to which consensus here seems to have converged). --Randykitty (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge to the Russian Institute as this is borderline GNG pass; merging seems better.Forbidden User (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Question I really am curious to know what makes you think that this is a "borderline GNG pass"... --Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2014 (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.