Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slověne (journal)


 * 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 speedy delete. Per G7. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Slověne (journal)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails all the three criteria of WP:NJOURNAL. — kashmiri  TALK  15:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was on the verge of PRODding this, but Kashmiri beat me to it. No independent sources. Not included in any selective databases. The article originally claimed that the journal is indexed in Scopus (as does the journal's own homepage), but that failed verification (not in the journal list linked here). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are ESCI (Web of Science, Core Collection), MLA International Bibliography, and Linguistic Bibliography not selective database?Grisha fomenko (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact is that Scopus indexes its content very slowly. This journal has been accepted for indexing in Scopus only in March, 2016. Of course there is no entries about it here. But you can translate from Russian this one: it's only independent sources for the Scopus acceptace yet. So, are we waiting for a trusty infromation from here -- or delete soon?Grisha fomenko (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So, you can read about this journal from its website and make your own impression about it. The institution, which publishes it, is rather authoritative, it isn't a predatory journal anyway. Hey, real specialists in Slavic studies, please say something about this journal! Grisha fomenko (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, agreed it is a real journal, it perhaps is not predatory - but encyclopaedic notability is not related to being "predatory" (it is perfectly possible for a predatory journal to be notable!). At WP:NJOURNAL, you can read the minimum requirements for a journal to be included in Wikipedia. As a general guideline, journals that are only a few years old are not considered established enough to be notable in their field, as it usually takes many years or decades to gain worldwide respect and name. Hope this helps. — kashmiri  TALK  19:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, the Slavic studies in Russia (more precisely, in the Soviet Union) were destroyed in 1930s-40s by the totalitarian regime, therefore the age of corresponding journals doesn't matter. Our scholarship lived in underground for a long time, and now we are happy to be visible for English speakers indeed.Grisha fomenko (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Grisha, there is nothing wrong with non-English speaking countries not having many notable English-language journals. I am sure ru-wiki has many notable Russian-language journals, also in Slavic studies. En-wiki does not list "the best English journals available" for each country in each academic field - but only those titles which are likely to be encountered by a casual English-speaking reader. Regards, — kashmiri  TALK
 * Dear, I understand. But this journal is multi-lingual, and it does issue papers in English too, saying nothing of the full English abstract for each paper.Grisha fomenko (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There are tens of thousands of English-language journals in the world. Wikipedia has to be selective. — kashmiri  TALK  21:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, Princeton University Library, Bodleian Library, and Research Libraries UK subscribe to the journal, therefore Wikipedia may ignore it. See also the personal webpage of a prominent specialist in Slavic studies from Leiden University who isn't ashamed to show his membership in the editorial board of this journal. I continue to insist that this periodical is important in the field of Slavic studies despite its youth.Grisha fomenko (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nobody says that this is not a respectable journal. Unfortunately, as Kashmiri already pointed out above, being respectable (or not) is not enough to be included in WP. This article is just too soon, with a little more patience it will eventually meet our inclusion criteria. Just not yet. --Randykitty (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Randykitty, ok, you're right.Grisha fomenko (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Since this is an official periodical of the Russian Academy of Sciences, I cannot see why this wouldn't be a valid entry. Google Scholar shows quite a number of references, which means that IMO criterion 2 has been met. &mdash;IJzeren Jan  Uszkiełtu?  17:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Google Scholar shows barely 8 (eight) references if you remove results from the journal itself - those from slovene.ru and cyberleninka.ru . Eight refs for an academic journal is somewhat little for a Wikipedia article. — kashmiri  TALK  05:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And being published by the Russian Academy of Sciences does not confer notability. And is rather generous saying that "Eight refs for an academic journal is somewhat little for a Wikipedia article." If this were a single researcher with 8 citations, we wouldn't even be talking about this. For a whole journal, 8 is basically proof of non-notability (insofar as a negative can be proven). --Randykitty (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Please note that the article creator agreed with deletion above (and actually proceeded with blanking the article). --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Draft instead as a compromise as there's consensus for at least removing from mainspace but also at least keeping somehow and that's the solution: Draft. Examining the article currently still found questionability and is thus best Drafted until better is actually available. SwisterTwister   talk  00:43, 23 June 2016 (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.