Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sámi Dieđalaš Áigečála


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sámi Dieđalaš Áigečála

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator who added an in-passing mention and claims notability because this is the first journal publishing in this language. However, that is not a claim for notability. Neither does a GScholar search unearth any evidence for this being "widely cited" as claimed on the article talk page. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment this topic appears to fall below our notability threshold but given its unusual status as a minority language publication there’s a case for keeping it anyway. Mccapra (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep Gbooks search shows multiple English-language titles that cite articles from Sámi Dieđalaš Áigečála. The added citation is not a "passing reference"; it's an article on where scholars at Sámi University publish in the context of the school's mission to support Sámi languages; that SDÁ is the most frequent outlet for articles written in Northern Sámi is relevant and indicative of the journal's value. It also demonstrates that, within the context of the Northern Sámi language, that the journal is "known for its publishing of scholarly research" (per WP:NJournals over the past 26 years. I'd also point to this quote from the Research Council of Norway's Evaluation of the Humanities in Norway: Report from Panel 2 – Nordic Languages and Linguistics: "The Sámi-language journal Sámi dieđalaš áigečála plays an important role. Although its dissemination is limited by its language, the fact that an exclusively Sámi-language linguistic journal of high quality exists is necessary for Sámi to be considered a fully-fledged language." Northern Sámi is a small language and therefore will not have hundreds of citations, particularly in English. Clearly SDÁ meets criteria 1 and criteria 3 of WP:NJournals, and it meets criteria 2 if one takes into consideration the size of the language community involved. Carter (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the reasoning of . Mccapra (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: The reasoning of is incorrect, this journal misses all three criteria of NJournals. Even predatory journals (which this isn't) will collect a smattering of citations; that this journal hasn't gathered more in 26 years of existence is testimony to it being not notable. The Norwegian evaluation is done by the very people who publish in this journal. The size of the language community is irrelevant, of course. As Carter says, " its dissemination is limited". If this journal had even minimal notability, it would have been picked up by at least a few specialized databases, such as the MLA International Bibliography. --Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Research Council of Norway is not the publisher of Sámi Dieđalaš Áigečála, although it does provide funding to the universities that publish it, and the panel who wrote the report (listed on page 77) does not (in an admittedly quick spot check) appear to include anyone who has been published in it. SDÁ is a Level 2 publication in the Norwegian Scientific Index, which is "reserved for the internationally most prestigious publication channels". This alone should meet criteria 1 ("influential in its subject area"). It is clear from Google Scholar that SDÁ is frequently cited in papers that publish in Sámi languages and articles about Sámi language and culture; without access to MLA International Bibliography, it's hard to say how frequently such topics are even covered in that resource, which is why the size of the language community and the corresponding academic interest in it matters in assessing criteria 2. As for criteria 3, the establishment of SDÁ is historically relevant and notable for Sámi scholarship, as noted in the Research Council of Norway report. Carter (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm not at all convinced. Norway is a small country (population-wise) and the two universities that sponsor this journal are prominently represented in the RCN. --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you think the RCN report's process was a self-evaluation. It was not. Each panel consisted of "independent Humanities scholars from a range of European countries." Panel 2 (the one cited above) was made up of scholars from England, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. This was part of a major, multi-year effort to critically assess and benchmark Norwegian scholarship and research. Carter (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:53, 2 June 2020 (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.

Keep - though I'm not sure whether comments on a closed discussion are acceptable. In my opinion, the article is sufficiently notable on the basis of the sources quoted. Any additional sources are likely to be in Sami or other Nordic languages which are not easily accessible to the English-speaking community. I therefore think the article to be kept in its present form.--Ipigott (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)