Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals)/Archive 5

Making progress
Before the breakout of conflict in mid-December, this essay had two significant problems, with two ancillary problems
 * 1) the "always notable" language
 * 2) the reliance on indexes as RS for notability discussions, which has no support in WP:RS, and two things that stem from the reliance on indexes:
 * 3) the resulting directory-like quality of articles, which conflicts with WP:NOTDIRECTORY
 * 4) the resulting lack of characterization of journals, so that an indexed FRINGE-spewing journal is described pretty much the same way as an indexed run-of-the-mill academic journal

We have managed to address #1 to some extent, but there has been no progress on the other one nor the two problems that flow from it.

User:Randykitty's post above laid the groundwork for dealing with #2 and discussed 2.1, but not 2.2.

The discussion above by members of this project has mostly been reacting to jps, who is acting like the fence-storming activist. In the context of everybody's limited time and energy, jps would you please cool it, and would members of this project please focus on the remaining issues?

In my view, the following need to happen for the status quo to remain mostly intact:
 * 1) The essay needs to address 2, 2.1, and 2.2
 * 2) WP:RS needs to be amended to include indexes as reliable sources
 * 3) WP:NOTDIRECTORY needs to be amended to allow the kind of journal articles that exist.

If these things don't happen, this essay should be made historical, as it out of step with the rest of the project. Can we please focus on addressing these issues? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Selective indices are WP:RS for the purpose of determining whether a journal is notable or not, and there is no conflict with WP:NJOURNALS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We do not list only trivial information like issns and other trivialities tables of content, list of authors, etc (see WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide). Even if it were an issue, problems of contents are beyond the scope of notability guidelines and should be addressed elsewhere. But if you want to ammend WP:RS or WP:NOTDIRECTORY, be my guest, I just don't see the need for it.
 * Concerning the characterization of fringe journals, we go by what WP:RSes say about it. If no one has criticized a journal for being shit, we stick to what has been said about it, and we don't say it's shit because of WP:SYNTH. But I've yet to see a notable fringe journal that hasn't been criticized by an expert somewhere, weather they fail WP:NJOURNALS (e.g. Journal of Cosmology) or pass it (e.g. Acupuncture in Medicine). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that is your position. I would be willing to try to RS or NOTDIRECTORY but I won't do that until this essay is updated to explain the use of indexes and why the resulting articles are directory-like.  I'll note that if I do try and either effort fails, the status of this essay will be damaged.  Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "I would be willing to try to RS or NOTDIRECTORY"? What does that even mean? Or why does WP:NJOURNALS need to explain "the use of indexes" (at least beyond what we already say "A journal can be considered notable if it can be demonstrated to have significant coverage in the media, or demonstrated to have a significant impact in its field. This is usually verified through the journal's inclusion in selective indexing and abstracting services and other selective bibliographic databases." (emphasis mine) or "why the resulting articles are directory-like" (especially when they are decidedly not directory-like). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "But if you want to ammend WP:RS or WP:NOTDIRECTORY, be my guest,". I wrote: "I would be willing to try to RS or NOTDIRECTORY". I and others have already explained that the use of indexes in this project is idiosyncratic within WP and the reason why they are used needs to be explained so that other people outside your bubble understand it.    Your comments are again bizarre and unproductive and I will ask you just not to respond here further, as comments like the one above are just clutter.  Your behavior is the exact flipside to jps' and between the two of you we are making no progress.  Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry if your inability to write proper English somehow makes me "bizarre" and "unproductive", but "I would be willing to try to RS or NOTDIRECTORY" makes literally no sense. What does "trying to RS" mean? What does "trying to NOTDIRECTORY" mean? As for the uses of indices being idiosyncratic to this project, this is hardly the case. WP:NBUSINESS considers inclusion in lists such as the Fortune 500 or the Michelin Guide to be good enough to establish notability, as does WP:NASTRO which considers inclusion in catalogues such as the NGC Catalogue or Messier Catalogue to be good enough to establish notability. In fact, that WP:NASTRO guideline was modeled after WP:NJOURNALS's selective database/index critera ! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking forward to productive discussion. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently not, because this is your boiler plate reply whenever someone disagrees with you, instead of addressing the substance of the argument. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I guess I could have, um, "ammended" my text, but to anybody reading the discussion in good faith what i meant is obvious. I will implement WP:SHUN with respect to you from now on. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Or how about you do a little WP:AFG every now and then and stop pretending the rest of the world can understand half assed English? I have specifically asked to you clarify what you meant, and you've repeated the exact same words. Don't blame your bad faith pigheadness on me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that Jytdog omitted the word "change" and meant: "I would be willing to try to change RS or NOTDIRECTORY". Whether such changes are necessary is perhaps debatable. As I see it, there are two separate issues. First, are bibliographic indexes RS? All these indexes have stringent editorial control. So, like Headbomb, I am of the opinion that indexes are reliable sources. If they are also selective, then I think that confers notability. That's basic GNG: if several RS discuss a subject in-depth, then it is considered notable. The problem then boils down to the question whether being included in, say, the Science Citation Index or Scopus constitutes "in-depth coverage". If all that these databases would do would be to list tables of contents, then it could be argued that this is not the case. So something like Current Contents is selective and reliable, but it is not in-depth and does not contribute to notability. However, the SCI and Scopus do much more than that. They analyze every journal in minute detail. The particulars are a bit different for the two, but it is important to realize that they do not just calculate impact factors. In addition, they look at things like article influence; which other journals cite a journal being analyzed most; which journals are most cited by the journal being analyzed; what is the journal's citation half-life, how does the journal compare on any of these measures with other journals in the same subject area; etc. That we (and many researchers) do not use all these results is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is an in-depth analysis. Hence, I think that these selective indexes are RS that discuss a topic (journal) in-depth and, hence, we are meeting GNG. What needs to change, perhaps, is that NJournals should explain this in more detail than it currently does. Next: NOTDIRECTORY. Again, I agree with Headbomb that a journal article prepared according to our writing guide, even though perhaps only a stub, is something much more than a directory entry. We're not talking phone-book here... Finally, somewhere in all the text above the issue has been raised that these articles would be permastubs. Again, I'm afraid that I have to disagree. We have articles on Roman citizens for whom we barely know more than their names (it is assumed -not without logic- that if their names came down to us over two millenniums, these people must have been notable). We also have articles on athletes that competed in the 1900 Olympics and for most of those, again, we barely know more than their names, what they competed in, and how high they ended. It would appear highly unlikely to me that we'll ever get more sources about those people. Now those articles are permastubs: stubs that are unlikely to ever grow into a full(er) article. The same is not true for the journal articles created following our writing guide. Any journal that is currently in existence ca at any time become the subject of significant coverage, even though there is no way of knowing when (or even if) that will happen. Granted, usually such coverage means that something went wrong with the journal (fighting editors, accepting rubbish articles, etc), but that is not the point. The point is that sources may be forthcoming in the future, hence these are not permastubs.

Now does this mean that I think NJournals is perfect and should stay as it is? No, it doesn't. To start with, I think we need to do a better job to explain why selective databases are RS. Other details also need to be looked at again, such as the "historical purpose". I think that to argue that something has a historical purpose, you need at last one good source that says so, it should not be an editorial judgment of a WP editor. But if such sources exist, then the journal meets GNG, so I think it is superfluous and should be scrapped. There's the remark about evaluating in how many libraries a journal is held. That measure is rather dubious for open access journals (libraries only need to add a link to their webpage and, presto, they "hold" the journal). Even for subscription journals this is not always meaningful in this age of bundled package deals (libraries have to take some journals they're not interested in, in order to get those that they really want for a lower rate). In addition, in my experience WorldCat (the main source for this kind of data) is highly unreliable. However, all these things are details. The main issue is that of whether or not we accept indexing in selective databases as in-depth coverage in a reliable source or not. I give my arguments above, let me hear what you think. --Randykitty (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree on CC not counting towards notability. Indepthness of coverage is not an issue if selectivity is good. You just can't use CC as a source to write anything except that the journal is in CC, since they don't do any other analysis, whereas being in JCR will give you the impact factor, which as flawed as it may be, is an actual measure of impact in concrete term (likewise for the SCImago Ranking of Scopus, etc.). So while CC does count towards establishing the notability of a journal, it would not add content, and a journal only being in CC would likely mean there's so little to write about it it might not appropriate for a standalone entry per "It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject.". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW,, I think you're going off an old version of the guideline concerning history. The current wording is "Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.", whereas the old wording was "Criterion 3: The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history." Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, my poor memory. But that new phrasing doesn't really change my point, I think. For a journal to be judged "historically important" there need to be soruces that confirm this. --Randykitty (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. That's why we have the remark that passing C3 pretty much means passing WP:GNG directly. It is a tighter language than before, however, so whereas one could argue "but this journal was meant to do X" (purpose), now one needs to show that a journal actually did X (historical importance/impact). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in Randykitty. The last paragraph is helpful.  To get things rolling would you please propose language that explains the use of indexes in this essay?  thx Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with most or all of what Randykitty says. However, to make this line of reasoning clearer in the actual essay / failed guideline / whatever it is, maybe we could replace the text about having a citation index being a marker of automatic notability? The actual marker of notability should be the in-depth report on the journal prepared by these indexes. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For C1 this has mostly been addressed. What used to say "always qualifies" currently says "usually qualifies"


 * first by Hbomb changed to read "usually" then
 * then by Guy changed to " is likely to indicate that the journal is notable"
 * then by Steve Quinn here back to "always" (zoiks)
 * then here by me back to " is likely to indicate that the journal is notable"
 * then by Steve Quinn here to "usually qualifies (in other words, this is a likely indicator of notability)."
 * after a bunch of fuss, buy HBomb here to "usually qualifies"


 * -- Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * A question since I cannot access either Scopus or SCI: how much of the information given is generated by a human directly, and not simply the result of database searching? This to me makes a big difference - if its just a database result, that's primary information and not a secondary source. If there's actual human analysis of the results, that's different, that shows transformation of information that makes it a secondary source and at least a reasonable starting point for notability presumption. --M ASEM (t) 19:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, but who exactly performs the analysis is hardly something that should make a difference. What algorithms to use is decided by humans. What data to run the algorithms on, and which to exclude is decided by humans. Which journal is included in the analysis is a human decision. That's what matters. That's the point of using selectiveness as the criteria of notability, as opposed to analyses done by say Google Scholar, which aims to be comprehensive. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * however, would probably know for sure, and have more information there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just briefly: there's human involvement. One of the criticisms on the IF is that the IF as reported by the JCR cannot be reproduced using the SCI data. The reason for this is that the raw SCI data are curated by editors (to weed out errors, get a clearer count of numbers of "citable items", etc. While this is a source of criticism, it is also an indication that this is not simply a computer program doiing standard calculations (even though that certainly is part of it) but that there also is significant human intervention. No more time for more right now... --Randykitty (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It absolutely matters who or what is making the report and by what means. Secondary sourcing requires a transformative step that cannot be done by a computer algorithm, and requires human expertise to make certain leaps of logic. If SCI or Scopus only use computer programs to scour databases, that's not a secondary source. And if per RandyKitty, that SCI's results are only to eliminate outliers prior to the algorithm, that's still a problem with SCI not ending up as a secondary source. We're looking for a human to say something along the lines of "why" the results are important. --M ASEM (t) 20:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Every bit of human analysis can be performed by a computer. If I take the FFT of a signal manually, or ask a computer to do it for me, the results will be the same regardless of who actually did the calculations. If I tell a machine "use this data, exclude this one, use this algorithm" etc., the analysis is just as valid if no computer were involved. That a source is primary or secondary is besides the point. JCR is the primary source for the IF (which is perfectly allowed per WP:PRIMARY), but is a secondary source for notability, since the JCR is independent of the journal. That the IF was calculated by a human or a machine is besides the point, because to analyze that specific journal was a human decision. Experts, not a machine, decided a journal should be analyzed because knowing its impact on the field was deemed important (again, by humans). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First, there are things about human analysis that cannot be done by computer, such as synthesis of thought. We're not expected a secondary source to be based on human analysis only - it can be augmented by computer analysis, but still requires the human to have come to some conclusion or novel thought about the results beyond what the computer said. Selecting which data to use, in a manner of outlier elimination, does have some human insight in this case (since we're talking more semantic than numerical data so outliers can't be calculated easily), but we're still concerns on the end data and the human analysis on that. In terms of primary vs secondary, you are describing more the difference between first and third-party - the journal is the first-party, JCR the third. Primary sourcing can come from third-parties, such as one just reprinting results of a database like IF (it seems in this case). Secondary needs that transformation of thought.
 * Now, to take the argument that some decision was needed to decide that a given journal was to be analyzed by the IF or other algorithm, okay, but then what we from the encyclopedia (outside the world of information science) is why that was the case, so that we know where that journal fits into the larger world picture from a layman's view. And unfortunately, it doesn't sound like this reasoning is published by IF or others, they have just determined internally "this is an important journal, we'll analyze it". That gives us no help in writing an encyclopedic article on the journal. On the other hand, if there is even a paragraph snippet that explains their logic for inclusion, great, that's secondary sourcing we need - not the actual index but that reasoning. --M ASEM (t) 20:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The analysis necessary for determining notability in WP articles cannot be performed by a computer. In this particular field, it requires human judgment at multiple stages. First, to see if the journal is in a field where JCR is relevant--I see the above argument does mention this, but it does not mention the situation in many fields where it is relevant but not decisive.. . Second, to compare it with other journals in the same field--the JCR algorithms for field cannot be depended on, and the relevant level of IF for importance of a journal varies widely by field. Third, to determine if the IF calculation has correctly  classified in each instance what counts as a source article for which to do the calculation (I note that ISI and Scopus do this quite differently, and there is no general rule to decide which one is better.  ,Fourth, to determine the extent to which the nature of the contents -- review articles in particular--has been allowed for -- ISI gives only a partial indication. (It is possible to determine this in some cases from the distribution of values in the summary statistics, but in general, it requires re-analysis of the primary data. Fifth, to asses  the likelihood that the  data for the journal is a fluke--errors have happened and been corrected, so it can be safely predicted there are also errors that have not yet been corrected.  This is just a preliminary list of the problems--with some more time and a little research in the extensive literature on the validity of IP calculation I could identify   many more. I've been doing journal selection for libraries since the introduction of JCR, There is no fully automatic way for analyzing intellectual production in a meaningful way, and this will remain the case because some of the factors are no quantifiable, with some of the even being subjective. The availability of IF data is a wonderful tool, for use by people who understand the technique and the conceptual and social universe with which it operates.   DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much to DGG and Randykitty. So, Jaytdog and Masem - this seems to be the kind of context you are both looking for, to help explain this project's notability criteria. Also, it seems to provide a satisfactory explanation for how the IF is an important tool for determining notability on Wikipedia - for those who do not regularly contribute to this project.
 * A point I wish to bring up is - as a contributor to this project I do not appreciate characterizing this project's academic journal aritcles as part of trivial directory. This appears to be an erroneous view. A lot of work goes into creating one article, including having to determine if it will make the cut. It may only take an hour or a little more to create a stub, but the author has to pay attention to detail - because every author has to answer to the other editors in this project.
 * There is important information in each journal article - in particular, its scope, its impact, the publisher, its homepage, the location of published journal articles online, where it can be found in the Library of Congress, and so on. These are important reference materials for our readers and, I am guessing, for some researchers. These are not trivial creations. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No one is calling information about journals as "trivial". But they do mostly fail the basic notability guidelines we expect for most other topics, showing how the journal is relevant the world at large and outside the field of information science. Does this mean we shouldn't cover these journals? No, but just not in standalone articles. It is completely fair that each (non-junk) journal should be a clickable blue link which at least links to the publisher's page and givens sufficiently basic details about the journal. We just can't make the special case that just because it is cataloged in a citation index that that automatically presumes we can write a GNG-capable article. I've also pointed out that there can exist a place to have more details on journals on the sister projects where it might make more sense since this data is less encyclopic and more, well, data-ish. --M ASEM  (t) 06:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't agree with you on not having standalone articles. And I don't agree that journal articles should be reduced to clickable blue links. And we can make the case, and have effectively made the case - that since it is indexed in selective databases and demonstrates an impact in its field we can, indeed, write a GNG-capable article. Because it is an article that satisfies GNG already.
 * As has been stated at least several times before - selective database listing = independent reliable sourcing. Furthermore, selective indexing = reliable, independent published sources per WP:RS. Significant impact is a mantra on Wikipedia for helping to determine notability - so this project is not different. Several other projects have been mentioned by Headbomb that use indexing of some sort as well. So, again this project is not different from any other.
 * I was under the wrong impression about your point of view. I erroneously thought you were modifying your position. I see that is not the case. Lastly, I don't think the sister-project idea is going to work - at least not for me - and I think I am not alone. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Steve Quinn, again see RandyKitt's section above here where it is really clear that if regular GNG, with normal sources, applied, there would be like five journal articles in WP. Instead there are very many, each sourced to indexes and essential a catalog entry.  yes, a directory entry.   That is what you all do here.  Which is not trivial work.  At all. Being a librarian is a real job.   But that is what it is, and needs to be brought into harmony with the rest of WP.
 * And with regard to explaining, no - highly technical talk buried here on the Talk page is not what is needed. What should happen, is an explanation about why NJOURNALs relies on indexes and indexes do, be made part of the essay so that when people come to read it, it actually explains what is going on here, instead of assuming it. This will be better for everybody, including people who try to create new journal articles that get put up for deletion. Jytdog (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Our journal articles are not directory entries in the sense of WP:DIRECTORY, and it would be productive if you stopped claiming they were. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

can we please focus on the key next step, namely including a discussion of indexes as sources in the essay itself? Thx Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to make lists
I think that the members of the Journal WikiProject are being honest that they believe that journals are notable when they are indexed by what they think are selective indices. I think, however, that if the articles about obscure journals are all pro forma, it would help us to look at what a list article would appear as. I can imagine a list such as List of indexed medical journals to be very useful. We don't even have to make the decision right now whether to redirect to the list article or have stand-alone (which I would prefer to be case-by-case), but I think such a list would be good to have.

jps (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * We have List of medical journals (see Lists of journals for others). All journals are indexed somewhere, so there's no point in having such a list. If the point is to have one list per selective index, then those would have such high overlap that they would be merged to List of medical journals. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Making lists would, as far as I can see, make it so much more difficult to keep out non-notable journals or to clearly signal bad ones, which I think is 's main concern. To be included in a list does not necessarily imply notability. So what would there be to prevent, say, OMICS Publishing Group, from inserting their journals in such lists? How would pseudoscience journals be clearly discussed? A list simply has no place for all the info that we include in those much maligned stub articles on journals, let alone any discussion on the quality of one journal or another. Regardless on how you'd organize such a list (by publisher, by subject...), they would be unwieldy long. In my opinion, the current system is vastly superior, even though perhaps not flawless. It makes it possible to present all available info on a journal and to add any information that may become available at some point (perhaps somebody writes an article or book chapter on the history of a field, including a discussion on the influence of the journal on that field, or, less positively, editors fight and resign or some bad editorial decisions are made and generate third-party coverage). --Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * List can contain some basic information. It can say where the journal is indexed. It can say if it in Bealle's List. It can say when it began to be published. We should have a way of identifying the journals in a field, and they are a better way  than using only categories, which is the only alternative, and give no information whatsoever.  DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Lists that exist in mainspace should not discriminate against "bad" journals by exclusion, though if there are sources that call them out, that can be noted in this list; our sourcing requirements should be a behind-the-scenes thing and not reflected in mainspace. But in the desire to meet WP:RS, separately in WP space there can be white/blacklists of journals that can be used as RSes. --M ASEM (t) 18:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify that, lists in WP space that can be used as RS? --Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think they meant that some journals can be RS, and we can list in WP space the ones that can and the ones that can't. Not that the WP list is itself a RS. Not that that does any good to the Wikipedia readers — WP space is only for editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean. I do not know what exists already in the various sciences, but for example, at the video games WProject, we have WP:VG/S, an internal, behind the scenes list of sources we've vetted for reliability based on our personal consensus as WP editors. What's in this list does not affect any of what is put into mainspace (sites we've deemed unreliable like VGChartz still have mainspace articles), outside of sourcing. Similarly, you may have a WP-space list that blacklists junk medical journals for very good reason, but if one factually knows the journal is considered, broadly, a medical journal (even if one that published bunk), that should be included in the mainspace list of medical journals. --M ASEM (t) 20:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussing indexes as sources in the proposed essay
It seems to me, provides a view from the outside, which maintains three things need to happen - and I interpret this as meaning a compromise is needed. The three goals they stated are: Although I don't see the need for an explanatory essay, I think Jytdog's view probably represents a sector of this community that perceives this essay as essential. Personally, I am willing to work with this compromise - on all three goals. However, leaving aside what I am willing to do, please note that Randykitty, Headbomb, and DGG have provided very insightful explanations. Masem and jps have also provided useful information. There might be more on this page.
 * 1) An essay that "needs to address 2, 2.1, and 2.2"
 * 2) "WP:RS needs to be amended to include indexes as reliable sources"
 * 3) "WP:NOTDIRECTORY needs to be amended to allow the kind of journal articles that exist"

In any case, from these contributions, I think a very useful explanatory essay can be constructed (and even more than one). This is what I intended when acknowledging Randykitty and DGG at the beginning of my previous post. So, I entreat other interested parties to propose elements of these explanations and counterpoints to begin building a proposed essay. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My position is that none of these things needs to happen, that the analysis and selectivity provided by these indexes already qualifies them as reliable and in-depth sources, and that this essay merely codifies that understanding. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * David I agree with you. This is why I am having a difficult time with this. I think the essay does a really good job of codifing this. However, I am willing to work with others on this as a compromise to other views, and see if this will work. Anyway, I think what you just wrote is the first line that I am proposing for additional explanation. Also, please keep critiquing this as we go along (if you have the time) - I think this would help to keep this idea from going off on a tangent. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, it is possible this doesn't have to be written into the actual codifying document. A link might suffice, to the proposed explanatory essay. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

-
 * 1. So, my first proposal is as follows:
 * The purpose of Criterion 2 is to assert (or explain how?) "the analysis and selectivity provided by these indexes already qualifies them as reliable and in-depth sources and this essay (guideline) codifies that understanding".
 * Should it be Criterion 2 "asserts" or does it "explain how"? Is this for criterion 2? Also, this possibly gives us the kernel central idea, around which we can build our essay. Comments? Steve Quinn (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 2. OK here is another proposed element for this essay, quoted from one of the above comments (way above):
 * "The actual marker of notability should be the in-depth report on the journal prepared by these indexes." Change this to - "An actual marker of notability could be the in-depth report on the journal prepared by these (highly selective) indexes."
 * Comments? Also, I suggest that comments related tp a proposed piece of this essay, be made under each proposed piece. Just a suggestion. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 3. Well, I am not intending on going to town on this, but I found something else in the above comments that may be useful:
 * "Science Citation Index or Scopus constitutes 'in-depth coverage'" - is the beginning of this segment. Below is an edited version, and hopefully a comprehensive version. Some phrases are in quotes and these are derived from the same above comment (paragraph length by Randykitty).


 * For the purposes of this essay and this project, "Science Citation Index" (SCI) and "Scopus constitutes 'in-depth coverage'". "Current Contents is" considered to be "selective and reliable" and could contribute to notability. The SCI and Scopus" - "analyze every journal in minute detail", "they do not" merely "calculate impact factors.
 * In addition, they look at things like article influence, which journals are most cited by the journal being analyzed; what is the journal's citation half-life, how does the journal compare on any of these measures with other journals in the same subject area;" and so on. Wikipedia editors do not use all of these results for writing academic journal articles. However, the most relevant factor is that there is an in-depth analysis.
 * Analysis is achieved by a combination of computer analysis (algorithms) and human judgement, and the human factor governs. --Steve Quinn (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Comments? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What does a SCI or Scopus review look like? Can we use their reviews to write a good article or a featured article? If so how? jps (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Jps - I will have to get back to you on this. These are interesting questions. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Steve Quinn thanks very much for engaging. Greatly appreciated.   What I am looking for  -- what I think would help outsiders to understand how this essay works and its basis - is a brief section actually discussing sources for content about journals and which among them are considered reliable.  I proposed language to do that above based on what Randykitty wrote... too much perhaps and people seemed to react super-negatively to the (completely obvious to people outside this project) explanation by Randykitty about how there would be very few journal articles if the kinds of' RS standards that are usually applied,  were applied to journals.  So an explanation about what indexes are in library science, why they matter, how they are generated (from the discussion above!) an which ones matter and why, would be really, really helpful. I am not challenging the use of indexes -- just asking that it be explained.  Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate Randykitty's willingness and ability to write that. I would not have been able to. But now that he has, I can try to derive some from what he wrote. Regarding WP:RS, I would prefer to not to say Wikipedia's definition of WP:RS is at variance with this project's definition of WP:RS, because there is no discrepancy. I would try to word that differently.


 * Sources for journal content? First notability has to be determined as a positive by using one of the three criteria. Content can be derived from reliable text (or web) sources that discuss the journal, and content can be garnered from the journal's own description per WP:PRIMARY and WP:NNC - but only after notability has been established. This is where the writing guide comes in. It is common practice to make sure the content that we write about the journal applies non-promotional wording. Like we can't say "the top journal" in its field or the "most rapid publishing" unless there are actual independent reliable text (or web) sources that say this. Steve Quinn (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A brief mention in a commercial database (such as Social Sciences Citation Index) based on completely haphazard and undisclosed criteria does not constitute "in-depth coverage" in any meaningful sense of the term and should not by itself be considered sufficient. These journals should be judged based on the same rigorous criteria as other journals (for example, by being historically important). Furthermore, as the databases in question favour English-language publications to an extreme degree (90% and above) while in many cases nearly entirely neglecting the non-English realm of academic publishing, this would be an example of a systemic bias favouring English-language publications; such databases also tend to favour certain disciplines over others. --Lillelvd (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Lillelvd, those opinions of yours have already been debunked at Articles for deletion/Norwegian Journal of Sociology. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen them being debunked anywhere, rather the opposite. --Lillelvd (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes they were debunked! No they weren't! Yes they were! No they weren't! Sigh. --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The 'depth of coverage' in these databases is inconsequential on notability, much like the depth of coverage in the NGC Catalogue is inconsequential for WP:NASTRO. The selectiveness of these indices is what's at play, because selective indices only consider impactful (thus notable) journals. Concerning the 'bias' of these 'commercial' databases, I've yet to hear a real argument there. Yes these cover mostly English journals, yes those criteria are often not explicitly listed on the database homepage, but none discriminate on a journal based on the language it's written in, nor does it change the fact that the Social Sciences Citation Index and others like it are considered authoritative and reliable by librarians and social scientists alike. Most of science and academia is done in English. That doesn't mean science/medicine/literature done in say, Afrikaans or French is bad, but if no one is reading it, no one is citing is, and no one is indexing it, then I have no idea on what basis you would consider that publication to be impactful/important/notable. Even if there were bias, that wouldn't make the journals in the SSCI non-notable, but rather mean that some notable journals aren't in the SSCI. Indexing in selective databases is only one of the ways to establish notability, and if you can show non-indexed journals to be notable via the other ways, that is allowed under WP:NJOURNALS too. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not question that the inclusion of a journal in one of these selective indices is something that can contribute to notability of a journal, but absent of anything else to describe about the journal besides "it sits at #XXX on the SI", it doesn't constitute enough to meet the GNG level of sourcing requirements. Further, there's been no indication given that being on one of these indices assures that GNG sourcing can be found to expand upon that indicing (chances are better, but nowhere close to a virtual guarentee to allow the presumption of notability under a subject-specific notability guideline). This is the walled-garden problem that we've seen before for MMA fighers - the users that want to keep them assure that "but they are very important" and could rattle off win-loss records and bunches of stats to show that, but never could produce sources to show that notability was there. Similar thing is happening here, in terms of putting excessive weight on the indicies while not actually getting to the material that WP articles should be built atop. --M ASEM (t) 16:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A win/loss record on its own wouldn't got toward notability, but being listed in a list of 'The 500 best MMA fighters' (or whatever authoritative/recognized lists exists in the MMA world) which uses the win/loss record at its criteria would count towards notability. We do note quite clearly however, that "It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Independent, third-party sources must exist for every topic that receives its own article on Wikipedia, without exception (see Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."). For the routine, uncontroversial details of a journal, official institutional and professional sources are accepted." Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Masem, most everything you just asserted, I see as your opinion. And everyone is entitled to their opinion. And thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * quick note... with regard to indexes and WP:RS - what I have written so far may have mislead folks to believe I am saying that the use of indexes isn't valid, and that the directory-like articles aren't valid either. Policy grows out of practice, and policy needs to change sometimes to catch up with practice.  [{WP:RS]] doesn't currently mention the use of indexes as RS and it should do.   Part of the reason for including a description of indexes here, is to help explain the background to the wider community when we go to update WP:RS.   I would like to hold off on the NOTDIRECTORY discussion til later.  One thing at a time! Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Doesn't currently mention the use of indexes as RS and it should do", I'm not necessarily opposed to specifically mentioning indices as being RS, but as of writing, WP:RS is a very high-level overview of what constitutes and RS and what doesn't, with very very few direct examples of "this is an RS" and "this isn't an RS". I don't really where it would mention indices as themselves being reliable sources (or even why it should) when the only specific advice given is a very general one
 * "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree."
 * We however, already mention citation indices thusly
 * "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context."
 * "In recent years there has been an explosion in new journals of very low quality that have only token peer-review if any (see predatory journals). They simply publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of established journals (see hijacked journals).[1][2][3][4] The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should be treated similarly to self-published sources. If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant citation index."
 * I honestly don't know, see, or understand, how someone could read the current version of WP:RS and conclude indices aren't allowed as reliable sources on whether or not a journal is indexed by that index, or as sources that journals indexed in selective indices are deemed influential in their field. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That section does provide a hook, which is very useful, but it is not about reliable sources for generating content about journals nor about the notability of journals under a Notability analysis per se . It is about background work for editors to do while considering sources.  Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's because sourcing and notability are to completely different things, and it is very unnatural to try to somehow merge the two together. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is to sourcing like gravity is to mass. You are going from unhelpful to completely clueless. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed revision of "Basic notabilty" section
What do folks think of the revision below? changes are shown with underlining and strikeouts, then a clean version is below. the goal is to integrate this better with N, and explain that indexes are considered RS, using content from RandyKitty's post above. This is just a draft and I anticipate changes...


 * Current

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.
 * Basic notability

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

Reliable sources as generally considered by the community discussing a particular journal in depth are very rare. Having multiple such sources about an academic journal is even rarer. Now let's do a thought experiment and suppose that NJournals would not exist. Where would that leave us with academic journals?
 * Reliable sources

The immediate effect would be that we would have to apply WP:GNG and only accept journal articles for inclusion if we have multiple (at least two) reliable sources providing in-depth coverage (of the journal, not of some article that appeared in it). Coverage of an article may render that article notable, but not the journal per WP:NOTINHERITED).

The result of this would be that only the most notable of journals (such as Science or Nature) would qua

The consequence of this would be the following. Most references in any science-, social science-, or humanities-related articles are to articles in academic journals. Currently, many of those link to articles about these journals, providing some basic information: what does the journal cover, who is the editor-in-chief, some basic indexing information (ISSN, link to WorldCat, link to the Library of Congress), and some details like publishing frequency, publisher, possible connected scientific societies, and how long the journal has existed. If we delete these articles, readers would not be able to find even the most basic info on them anywhere on Wikipedia.

Therefore, the community has determined that for academic journals, reliable sources for the purposes of notability testing and sourcing include

;No inherent notability Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Major journals are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller journal can be also be notable if they can be considered to be influential in their field.

Even if editors personally believe a journal is "important" or "inherently notable", journals are only accepted as notable if they have attracted notice in reliable sources. The fact that an journal exists is by itself not enough to support notability. Hundreds if not thousand of publications can exist in each field, many of them short-lived, while others amount to nothing more than predatory open access publishing scams. A journal can be considered notable if it can be demonstrated to have significant coverage in the media, or demonstrated to have a significant impact in its field. This is usually verified through the journal's inclusion in selective indexing and abstracting services and other selective bibliographic databases.

In the sense that a journal has been published, it may have been noted by various entities like the ISSN International Centre and WorldCat, who assign and compile information about serial publications. For the purposes of this guideline, notable means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG. No journal is exempt from this requirement. If the journal has received no or very little notice from independent sources or from the academic community, then it is not notable even though other journals in its field are commonly notable. Likewise a journal published by a notable organization does not necessarily mean that the journal is notable. Likewise, just because the journal is indexed in a bibliographic database does not ensure notability. Several database, like the Directory of Open Access Journals, aim for being comprehensive, and will index almost everything they can, regardless of impact or significance. It is not the job of Wikipedia to needlessly duplicate content in these databases.
 * No inherited notability

This guideline does not prohibit the creation or maintenance of list articles that contain information about non-notable journals. However, such lists are still subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability and no original research, and editorial decisions to exclude non-notable journals from such list can apply.


 * Proposed

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.
 * Basic notability

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

Reliable sources as generally considered by the community discussing a particular journal in depth are very rare. Having multiple such sources about an academic journal is even rarer. Now let's do a thought experiment and suppose that NJournals would not exist. Where would that leave us with academic journals?
 * Reliable sources

The immediate effect would be that we would have to apply WP:GNG and only accept journal articles for inclusion if we have multiple (at least two) reliable sources providing in-depth coverage (of the journal, not of some article that appeared in it). Coverage of an article may render that article notable, but not the journal per WP:NOTINHERITED).

The result of this would be that only the most notable of journals (such as Science or Nature) would qualify for inclusion in WP.

The consequence of this would be the following. Most references in any science-, social science-, or humanities-related articles are to articles in academic journals. Currently, many of those link to articles about these journals, providing some basic information: what does the journal cover, who is the editor-in-chief, some basic indexing information (ISSN, link to WorldCat, link to the Library of Congress), and some details like publishing frequency, publisher, possible connected scientific societies, and how long the journal has existed. If we delete these articles, readers would not be able to find even the most basic info on them anywhere on Wikipedia.

Therefore, the community has determined that for academic journals, reliable sources for the purposes of notability testing and sourcing include selective indexing and abstracting services and other selective bibliographic databases.

In the sense that a journal has been published, it may have been noted by various entities like the ISSN International Centre and WorldCat, who assign and compile information about serial publications. For the purposes of this guideline, notable means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG. No journal is exempt from this requirement. If the journal has received no or very little notice from independent sources or from the academic community, then it is not notable even though other journals in its field are commonly notable. Likewise a journal published by a notable organization does not necessarily mean that the journal is notable. Likewise, just because the journal is indexed in a bibliographic database does not ensure notability. Several database, like the Directory of Open Access Journals, aim for being comprehensive, and will index almost everything they can, regardless of impact or significance. It is not the job of Wikipedia to needlessly duplicate content in these databases.
 * No inherited notability

This guideline does not prohibit the creation or maintenance of list articles that contain information about non-notable journals. However, such lists are still subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability and no original research, and editorial decisions to exclude non-notable journals from such list can apply.

-- Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I find this way, waaayyyy too rant-y and unfocused. Thought experiments? Whole paragraphs on "reliable sources" just to say that bibliographic indices are indicators of notability? They are not WP:RS (which is about WP:V) about anything, since they (usually at least) do not verify, they are indicators of notability. A complete rewrite of the "basic notability section" throwing out the very basic idea that the academic impact of journals is important? Throwing out "No inherent notability"? I honestly have no idea what this rewrite aim to achieve, but if you want to rewrite anything, I suggest you first address what exactly is it you are trying to achieve with this rewrite.


 * Now I'm not opposed to clarification where it's needed in the current version, but I'm strongly against what's been presented above. The CORE of WP:NJOURNALS is
 * Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
 * Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
 * Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.
 * Whatever leads to this section needs to focus on those criteria. Clarifications can be made in the 'remarks' section, if needed. E.g. 1b) could possibly be expanded a bit, but a whole subsection on databases in the preamble is way unwarranted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * unconstructive. i look forward to constructive discussion, that specifically deals with the atypical sourcing used by this project.  I am sorry you find RandyKitty's description of why the odd sourcing is used here to be "ranty and unfocused". Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I swear working with you is the most annoying thing in the world. Unscontructive? You haven't even mentioned what in the world you're trying to address with those chances. "Atypically sourcing"? Hardly, we write our articles following WP:RS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Read the very opening of the post and this entire page. You have your head in the sand and every comment you make here is defensive and unconstructive.  This essay is going to change and be integrated with the rest of the encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That remains to be seen. Because as far as I can tell, the essay is fine as is, and you haven't actually come up with any actual issue with this as far as it being a notability essay/guideline is concerned. There is no head in the sand, only unsupported claims that 'this essay needs to change' for unclear reasons. Clarify those reasons, and we can have a discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There are many different established Wikipedians commenting here that something doesn't smell right. You are arguing that you cannot understand what we are saying (though I will grant that we aren't all saying exactly the same thing, many of us are pointing out the broader issue). The problems as I see them are that this essay is (1) being used as a de facto guideline without any wider agreement by the community that it should be so used, (2) is admittedly a divergence from WP:GNG for reasons having to do with sourcing, and (3) being used to argue that any journal that is included in certain "selective" indices (how it was determined that these indices are selective enough for Wikipedia is not explained) or mentioned in Journal Citation Reports is notable enough for a standalone article. In fact, the essay can be interpreted around point (3), but in practice there are a group of editors including yourself who seem to have adopted a categorical stance towards journal inclusion in Wikipedia which brings us back to point (1). For me, it seems like there are many ways to resolve this. We could have a well-advertised RfC where the two different sides state their claims and we see if, for example, we should update this essay to guideline, leave as is, or mark as historical. We could try to add some explanatory text that explains the status quo. We could try to get the text to read less categorically. My guess is that the only approach you are going to even be half-heartedly supportive of is (1), but since these issues have not really been hashed out in a proper way yet, I think you're going to have to give us patience while we decide what the next steps are. It would help if you would assume a modicum of good faith on the part of those who disagree with you, even as I am trying to do so with respect to you right now. jps (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to make of this. I think Headbomb needs to be removed from the discussion. jps (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We'll just continue to work around them. I do look forward to constructive discussion. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your desire to add an explanation is good. It makes me understand at least where we're coming from. jps (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is completely inappropriate for a proposed notability guideline/essay/whatever to define notability by membership in a specified list ["The result of this would be that only the most notable of journals (such as Science or Nature) would qualify for inclusion in WP"] rather than by actual criteria. Also, that bar is way too high. This proposal is a non-starter for me: so far from reasonable that it's not worth wasting my time discussing the details of why it's no good. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:David Eppstein I don't think you read this carefully or all the way through. It maintains the status quo and just explains why for the purposes of journals, indexes are considered RS for notability - most of it is copied from RandyKitty's excellent post above explaining that. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to disagree with a proposal that defends the status quo, even though I personally also prefer the status quo, when I think that proposal is written badly. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:David Eppstein and User:Randykitty.... David, do you disagree with what Randykitty wrote here? Assuming David doesn't disagree, would one one of you please propose some language explaining the different way that RS is defined for the purposes of this essay, and explaining why?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I wish there was some explanation that was understandable, though. Basically, I think this page is written as a means to allow for inclusion of a certain critical mass of journals. The idea is that such articles would be written to explain basic and simple information about the journal, its publication, and what its stated editorial philosophy might be. The question I have is, why standalone articles? The argument has been offered that a list would be too ungainly. That may be true, but I read many of the articles on journals that are kept and have to just blink my eyes. They don't do much more than reproduce the about section on the journal's actual webpage. How is this WP:NOTDIRECTORY then? jps (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A stub that just copies the publisher, ISSN, and scope of a journal is not worth keeping (example: the current AfD target APL Photonics). But a stub that covers the history and impact of a journal, with sources, should be ok. For instance, I think the stub on Mathesis (journal) (a somewhat obscure and now defunct mathematics journal, but sourced to four reliably published independent references about other topics that provide some detail about its history, one more source that appears less reliably published, and one catalog entry) is non-problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A statement like that would be fantastic. jps (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A statement like that would be utterly wrong. We do not delete stubs because they lack content. That's what a stub is: an underdeveloped article. We delete things because they are non-notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We do delete stubs that lack evidence of importance towards notability. --M ASEM (t) 02:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it is constructive. A bit wordy.  Fundamentally, this page needs to choose between being a guideline or an essay.
 * The three criteria are fine. It is Notability_(academic_journals) that goes off the rails.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Re:jps Most of those articles are at the stub level and could be expanded by following WP:JWG. WP:NOTFINISHED applies in many cases. The information on a journal is in many ways like information about some random astronomical object. A lot of what's important about a journal is the basic stuff (same for a galaxy). Picking NGC 17 randomly, you could argue that all this is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It's just a list of basic facts about the galaxy, its physical properties, who observed it, etc. But there are two types of "directories" ones like this and ones like . WP:NOTDIRECTORY takes the stance that Wikipedia is not the second kind, we do not just list indisriminate information, and uncurated collection of facts (e.g. we do not give tables of contents, lists of authors, etc. (see WP:JWG). Being the first kind of directory is perfectly acceptable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The crucial difference between articles about galaxies and articles about journals are the plethora of reliable sources beyond NED or atlases which discuss galaxies. If we had as many papers written about journals as we do about galaxies, we wouldn't be having this discussion. jps (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop shifting the goalposts. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL! You mentioned galaxies, not I. All I'm saying is that it would be nice if we had papers written about journals. But we don't, so here we are. :) jps (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The GNG may be the way the world sees notability of most topics, but it does not match the way the world sees the notability of journals. As the main communication media in the sciences and hard social sciences, those people who are concerned about journals know perfectly well what it important, and we need only show it. The importance of a journals is basically that it publishes important articles--that;s the basis of its existence, and without that nobody would read it. Important articles are articles that hare heavily cited, and therefore the Journal Citation Reports works very well to match the real world for those fields it covers (it doesn't work for niche field, or the humanities, or non-English titles--these are all harder problems. (The Scopus covers some of this, especially for European languages)
 * There is more than a stub to be said about a journal. Relevant information includes its publishing body or succession of publishing body, its title changes, the sequences of the editors in chief (of critical importance here because e-i-c of a major journal alll by itself is sufficient to meet one of the standards of WP:PROF), the famous authors it has published, the individual famous articles it has published, the changes in availability by ejournals and then open access of various types. A full analytical article on a journal is quite complicated, which is why there are relatively few quotable studies, but the verified information can none the less be given. (Third part indexes and catalogs provide the verification). Some day after I get free from arb com I may write a few.  DGG ( talk ) 10:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Might I make a request? I would like it if you would choose one of the fringe journals that have lately been kept to do this on first. I would like to see if you can find a way to properly contextualize, for example, a journal whose editor in chief was sued by his state medical board for dubious practices related to the very "alternative medicine", the same subject he is supposed to be expertly editing. jps (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * that is a somewhat different problem--how to handle subjects not notable except for something negative. There's also the possibility that the person is   indeed an expert by the standards of his field, so how to handle alt med is yet another special case where there is little agreement. When I do this I will do it for ordinary journals. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Request moved below for a fuller discussion of how fringe journals should be discussed. Mostly to avoid the trolling seen below. jps (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The talk page makes it fairly clear that the sourcing of that specific claim is what's the issue. If this is as you say indisputably true, it should be straightforward to provide as source that meets WP:BLP standards, (or can explain why casewatch.org is the same as Quackwatch, or whatever). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, Headbomb. Well, I mean, it's just plainly true that casewatch and quackwatch are the same group, but I'm not in the mood to have that eye-rolling-ly obvious discussion. On the other hand, it's questionable as to whether it is BLP-worthy inclusion because, crucially, the journal is so obscure it could come across as a petty and coatracky hit piece to point out the quack-i-tude of the EIC. Just because something is true doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. That goes for BLP issues as well as journals which are obscure in spite of being included in all the fanciest of indices. jps (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "but I'm not in the mood to have that eye-rolling-ly obvious discussion." Then don't complain about good faith efforts from other editors. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh, WP:CIR, you know. It's pretty easy to click on the about page of casewatch. jps (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And when you click that link, a competent editor who knows how to read carefully will learn that one of the people behind Casewatch is also involved with QuackWatch. Apart from that, there doesn't seem to be any connection and nowhere on the "About" page of CaseWatch is it claimed that they are part of QuackWatch. --Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * More than one, my dear kitty. If you and Headbomb cannot figure out that the two websites are connected, I am very discouraged that you two are running the Journals WikiProject. jps (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither I nor RK removed that source, you're looking at an edit made by StAnselm for reasons they detailed on the talk page. I neither condone, nor condemn the edit, and would very much like it if you stop ascribing to us the opinions and edits of others. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two biosketches on the about page and only the one for Barrett mentions QuackWatch, my dear 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS. I would think that someone who is very active on keeping fringe science out of WP would know the difference between "connected" and "the same". That QuackWatch is an RS does not mean that another site, even if there's some personal overlap, is so, too (it was "QuackWatch" that you claimed in your edit, wasn't it?). --Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You are making a fool of yourself. E-mail Barrett yourself and see how he prefers to describe the relationship between the two domains. Or maybe check the third-party sources about it. As I said, eye-rollingly obvious. jps (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think that emailing somebody and asking their opinion is an acceptable source on WP, you really need to read up on what constitutes acceptable sourcing. And saying that one website is a "sister site" to another one still does not make the sister site the same. You incorrectly wrote that QuackWatch said something. If your approach to creating reliable encyclopedic content is "it's a sister site and one person contributes to both so I can call it QuackWatch even though it's CaseWatch", then, for once and very exceptionally, I'll roll my eyes and tell you that the person making a fool of himself is you. --Randykitty (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You really are tiresome. If I didn't know any better, I would guess that you are somehow connected to the journal publishing business. But that wouldn't be right, would it? jps (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Because I try to be exact in what we write here and am a stickler for being correct, that makes me perhaps tiresome for people that cut corners, but how that would connect me to the journal publishing industry is beyond me. But your superior intelligence keeps surprising me, so perhaps I'm missing something yet again. I'm sure you'll explain it at length. --Randykitty (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Piotrus' thoughts
It seems I missed this very interesting discussion. Having caught up on it do some degree, here are my thoughts: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * regarding the current C1-C3 notability criteria:
 * I fully agree with C1 as worded right now, however "Examples of such services are..." is not acceptable. We need a comprehensive list of which indexes are sufficient for establishing notability.
 * I am not particularly fond of C2. It is too vague, and few people except <10 Wikipedians very familiar with this area will be able to use it efficiently. For the sake of an argument, I would like to ask if anyone can think of a frequently cited journal that is not indexed in database that fulfills C1? The only way I can think this could remain is if we can produce data on h-index for a given field, and agree on a cut-off point dividing notability from non-notability. Such h-index data could be presented in the "list of journals in foo field" articles. Without a clear number, I believe C2 is not useful (too easy to abuse).
 * As noted, C3 is redundant to WP:GNG, and I see no need to keep it.
 * I agree that "WP:RS needs to be amended to include indexes as reliable sources", through it should only see the indices that meet C1 as reliable. Again, we need a comprehensive list of reliable indices.
 * I agree that "WP:NOTDIRECTORY needs to be amended to allow the kind of journal articles that exist". There are other precedents - ex. monuments and objects of cultural heritage, about which we can barely write more than 2-3 sentences. This is however a discussion that would be better held at the talk of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.


 * The point of a guideline is that it's a guideline, not a rule. Most of the specifics are best tackled on a given AFD debate, and whether or not something is 'selective enough' can't be addressed in bulk except in the clearest of cases, which are those mentioned. Compare to WP:NASTRO, which lists 4 catalogues (HR, Messier, Caldwell, NGC), out of the many that exists. We can expand the list to give a few more examples, but there are myriads of selective indices. Is ADSABS good enough? In most cases yes (as far as astronomy journals are concerned), but sometimes no (it indexes things other than journals, such as technical reports, monographs, preprints, books, etc.). "Cited often enough" is deliberately vague, because what is "often enough" depends on the field. If you can demonstrate it's cited often, and people agree, then it's good enough, and the article is kept. If people don't agree, it's not good enough, and the article is deleted. This is a feature of the guideline, not a bug. Having an arbitrary h-index cutoff ignores that this greatly varies by field, and with journal age. A 80 year old medical journal with an h-index of 30 is much less impressive than a 4 year sociology journal with an h-index of 30. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The myriad of indices should not be a problem. WikiProject Video games created a page that lists and analyzes myriad of video games ources: WikiProject Video games/Sources (please look at this list, it is IMHO very impressive piece of work). I have never heard of ADSABS, but I see you know something about it - so you could make this comment on the list. If at some point you stop contributing to Wikipeia, we may lose our only editor familiar with this indice; and even now, can you be sure you can find all discussions that mention it and make such a comment if needed? If we have a list, you could share your knowledge of that indice there, and it would be easy for editors in all future discussions to refer to it and see if this indice is good or bad. Therefore I think it is totally feasibly to create such a list and to make all future AFD discussions easier by having a definite answer of whether being indexed in FOOINDEX is enough or not. If Video games fans can do it, so can we :)  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * ADSABS is known and used by virtually everyone remotely connected to physics and astronomy. I'm not against building a list of indices in general (would make a good addition to WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Resources), but I'm against enshrining that list in policy. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Progress on guideline?
Has there been any progress on this fake guideline? Either make it a proper guideline, or make it an overt opinion page that asserts nothing by fiat as essays should be, or give it up and tag as failed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have something constructive to say? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The status quo is pretty poor. Something needs doing. Denial is not productive. I have suggested merging journals, guidance for mention in table or list articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was reminded by Articles_for_deletion/Journal_on_European_History_of_Law_(2nd_nomination). This essay remains cited, but devoid of credibility or usefulness. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The guideline isn't fake, and enjoys wide support. It may or may not have wide enough support to reach official guideline status, but it definitely wide enough support to remain useful and used as the best de facto guidelines in discussions on journals. So right now, we have the status quo. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not fake, yes, it is currently the best there is. It's not very good. If it enjoys wide support, let's put it back through the proposal process. As an "essay", it is getting away with being sloppy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not "sloppy", no. The only time there's an "issue" with this page is when people want a certain journal to get special treatment. It's most often because there's a journal being deleted because of it. This case often involves COI-people, like editors or authors that often published in the journal which thinks that by not having an article on the journal, it means their scholarship published in the journal is sloppy. We specifically mention that reliability (quality of scholarship) does not imply notability, and vice versa. We occasionally get accusations of 'western/English' bias, but I never found this to check out (e.g. in this case, people have said 'European law journals' are niche, which is completely laughable). I'd be more than happy to have articles on Kenyan sociology journals published in Swahili, if it can be demonstrated via sources that this journal is notable. You will likely not be able to do this via 'Western' indices, but that doesn't exempt you from providing sources to demonstrate that notability in the first place. The guideline more than allows for this possibility. Occasionally people object because a journal is kept because of it, which usually stems for an ideological battle against pseudoscience/poor scholarship, who thinks academia is compromised when we acknowledge that shitty scholarship can be impactful. When there's disagreement on how to interpret the guideline as too restrictive (most of the time) / too permissive (occassionally), that pretty much tells you it's pretty near the sweet spot. When disagreements happen, the solution is not to WP:TNT the thing, it's to look at the core idea: has the journal been demonstrated to be impactful? If you can show this, the article should be kept. If not, the article should be deleted (or merged, which is often a better outcome than deletion). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. And I like your edits. I think the way forward is to get this page recognised as a guideline. I like the notion of merging non-notable (non-impacting) journals to their publisher. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The semester is ending here (and I suspect for a great deal of people at WP:JOURNALS), and I'm currently working on WP:JCW and . Gimme 2-3 weeks and I'll be able to free some time to write a proposal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:David_Eppstein, noting Articles_for_deletion/Journal_on_European_History_of_Law_(2nd_nomination). I think it is a verifiable worthy topic to cover, but not worthy for its own article. It needs somewhere to merge. What is your opinion?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that (although you voted to keep in the AfD and your side won) the new suggestion to merge comes across as an attempt to re-litigate the decision. I didn't participate in an AfD and haven't formulated an opinion on the notability of that specific journal, but the only plausible merge target is European Society for History of Law, a redlink listed within the article. But there's currently nothing to merge because that society's article doesn't yet exist, and in general notability of academic societies has many of the same issues as notability of academic journals (lots of people belong to the societies and use their journals, few reliable sources actually write about them in any depth). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely not here to try to win something. "What to do with non-notable journals" is an interesting question. To date, notability of a journal has not been well defined, with much of this "essay" incompatible with normal principles of Wikipedia-notability. But it shares something with WP:Prof. Non-wikipedia-notable journals includes niche impactful journals, fringe journals, fake journals and money making scam journals. And to keep it complicated, top journals blend into money-making scam journals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't doubt your good faith, it's just that a merge request now would seem to be odd timing. Anyway, I think trying to define notability of journals in a way that keeps the legitimate journals in and pushes the scam journals out is not going to work very well. Notability is too different a thing from legitimacy. I think the best we can do is try to keep the major journals in, make sure that scam journals are only included when they have enough coverage to properly source the fact that they're a scam, and not worry too much about whether standards that accomplish those goals end up keeping or excluding the minor but legitimate journals. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Fake journals

 * I know this page is about identifying notable journals, but coming from the other end, how do you identify a fake journal? For example, the International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mathematics.  It appear to not be in databases.  Please comment at Deletion_review.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Beall's List is a good place to start. It's best not to base arguments on journals that are run as complete scams according to Jeffrey Beall. jps (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Number 195. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For those with academic backgrounds, you might enjoy that the paper mentioned at the DRv mentioned by has a fake doi and the paper has the following as a reference:  Any paper with a reference like that has had no meaningful review.  Presumably it means the McCarthy & Guinot reference (no. 5) from Julian day, which is actually a chapter in an edited book, but how it has appeared in this alleged "academic publication" is laughable!  EdChem (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For mathematics journals specifically, inclusion or non-inclusion in MathSciNet is a pretty good test. There are occasional unlisted but non-fake journals (e.g. on topics like recreational math) but in general they list the real ones and not the fake ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

As a point of order, these aren't fake journal, these would be predatory or scam journals. Or just low-quality journals. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mathematics exists, so to say the journal is fake is not quite the right word. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A journal which is a scam can be safely called a fake or a phony. jps (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really know what I'm doing on here, but the entry on the "journal of near-death studies" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Near-Death_Studies could use a review to verify whether or not it is legitimate. I find myself highly skeptical from what I'm reading. (anonymous user) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.239.214.11 (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Are Nature's subject specific journals notable via this standard
I created a page for Nature Ecology and Evolution and a PROD was added asking for it to be deleted. This journal has published research widely covered in the New York Times and other high profile outlets. The average publication in this journal has an altmetric score higher 90% of published papers with the top 10% of papers in the journal higher in the top 1% overall papers on altmetric. If it were to get indexed by ISI would that all of a sudden make it pass this guideline. --MATThematical (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Research gets mentioned in newspapers and magazines all the time. So to answer your question, unless you have couple of sources discussion the journal (rather than simply research published in the journal), that go beyond simply press releases, or can show the journal is indexed in selective database (such as several of the ISI ones, but others exist too), then no, the journal isn't notable. Or at least, isn't notable yet (see WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTALBALL). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC to amend this and related guidelines
Village_pump_(proposals) -- Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

What databases are and aren't selective?
I think there should be more information on this page about which databases are and aren't selective, as per criterion 1b. For example, I just came across American Journal of Applied Sciences and wasn't sure if it meets this guideline, as it is indexed in some databases, but none that I know are selective (SCI, PubMed, etc.) I'm wondering what other editors think about this issue generally and w/regard to this journal specifically. Everymorning (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * According to MIAR, it's in Scopus, which we consider selective enough usually. It's also in Aerospace Database, Civil Engineering Abtracts, INSPEC, Metadex, and Communication Abstracts, although I have no idea about those databases' criteria for inclusion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Dictionary definition of guideline
user:Headbomb please explain why in this diff it makes sense to cite the dictionary definition of "guideline". Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

, mind restoring the longstanding version while this is being discussed? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's non responsive but does demonstrate the kind of GANG behavior that leads the community to nominate projects for deletion. Recorded. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * simple: The word "guideline" is what is meant in its common sense, to distinguish from WP:GUIDELINE, which isn't meant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Guideline has a meaning, especially here in a sentence that says "This is a X", a document which is very much in the WP:P&G regime. As you well know. If you wish to have this be a guideline and be able to say "this is a guideline" please put this through the process to elevate it to a guideline. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And "This guideline essay" makes that clear that this is a guideline essay, and not a  guideline. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is tendentious garble. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's the longstanding meaning of these words as written. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To get around all of the jargon I tend to use the word guidance when referring to anything like this where I neither know nor care whether it is guideline/essay/explanatory essay/random meanderings which address the point or whatever. Jbh  Talk  17:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * yep that is what i suggested below. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Would be acceptable to me, too. --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I could live with guidance, assuming it makes grammatical sense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

so this? Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * More like this (with a few this/these substitutions + grammar tweaks, it was a quick pass). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * once again overselling. This is an essay. Using "guidance" that way is straight down the same "dictionary sense of guideline" smoke and mirrors as where this started. This is an WP:essay. If you want to make it a guideline then do the work to make one. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no overselling, you're simply being obstructionist. You don't apply essays, you apply guidelines (or guidance). Saying "applying this essay" would be like "apply this book". You don't apply a book, you apply the guidelines/guidance contained in the book. Same thing here. As for the smoke and mirrors, you really ought to look in the mirror. Everyone agreed, including you, that "guidance" was suitable, but you now claim it's not because of your downright hatred of the advice contained in this guideline. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again with the twisted semantics. I do not support the oversold version. It is silly and kind of pitiful. And again with the crazy paranoid "you are doing this because you hate it" nonsense.  I wrote below that I think this could be a guideline.  I oppose promotional bullshit everywhere in WP.  It is not complicated. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Except for the glaring fact that there is nothing promotional on that proposal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * , the banner on top of the page clearly says this is an essay. At one time it was proposed to be accepted as a guideline, so that is the terminology used throughout. I don't see much of a problem with that. At the same time, I don't see much problem with replacing "guideline" with "essay", it won't change anything to current practice. You're both editors that I value highly and it pains me to see you butting heads like this. Jytdog, I know that we disagree about which academic journals merit inclusion. Some people, like, are rather inclusionist (but don't forget those far more extreme people all over WP who think that any journal should be included). Headbomb is somewhere in the middle, I'm more deletionist than either of them. And you are at the other extreme... :-) But we all have several things in common: a determination to keep abusive ("predatory") journals out, keep good journals in, and generally stive to better the encyclopedia. We just differ on where to put the bar. Trying to do away with NJournals completely (which I hope you'll admit is behind your effort to replace "guideline" with "essay") is, in my considered opinion, counterproductive. Instead of fighting about wording, it would be a far better use of our time as editors to clean up the many journal articles that have never been edited by anybody from this project (and a lot of rubbish and promotional stuff is hidden there), or, perhaps even better, to try to come up with notability criteria for journals that are acceptable to all of us, which would make it much easier to get non-notable journals deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The initial change was made by someone else, and it was a good change.  And no I have no desire to "get rid of NJOURNALS" which is a horribly bad faith thing to even bring up.  But the more you all play the walled garden game like you just did there, the more evidence you give that we should consider it.
 * btw in the lead, "This essay provides guidance about X" would be fine. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Come on, don't you remember this? How is it bad faith when I say that you would like to do away with NJournals? And how is it "playing the walles garden game" when I participate in this discussion??? --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That was a reaction to the exact same kind of tendentious behavior being displayed here. Again. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Rather than playing this aspirational game with semantics, why not nominate this to be elevated to guideline status and see if it flies? it might do. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems a reasonable thing to try. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately (and I agree that this would be the reasonable thing to do), I don't think it'll fly, based on my experiences of the past several years. Personally, I'd like to have NJournals tightened, because I think that too many marginal journals pass. Some want it tightened even more, basically requiring that GNG is met with in-depth discussions (and not accepting in-depth analyses of, say, citation metrics as such). And then there's a crowd of people who'd like to pull all NJournal's teeth and basically declare that WP:N does not apply to academic journals and that every non-predatory journal should be included (happily forgetting that you'll need sources confirming that a journal is not predatory...). You're welcome to try and I'll participate in the discussion, but I think that's heading to a firm "no consensus"... --Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally the fact that it's attacked both as too permissive (by people so hellbent on purging everything predatory/low quality that they're willing to burn good notable content as long as it means predatory is out) and too restrictive (by people hellbent on keeping all legit journals, even if they made no impact) means it's hitting the sweet spot of where it should be. The main issue is people insist on reading this as a rule, rather than guideline, and leave their brains at the door and forget that WP:IAR is a thing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * all WP guidelines (in whatever sense of the word) have meaning only in the manner in which they are interpreted, and effect only to the extent that they are followed. Just as we make our own rules; we do our own interpetation and our own enforcement, and allow our own exceptions. Our interpretations and the enforcement are whatever the consensus decides to do in individual cases. That's inevitable in a system like ours with no formal bureaucracy to enforce consistency.
 * I have learned ove the years that it is usually not wise to change the wording of long-standing wording of guidelines or policies at Wikipedia. Ther existing wording has its accompaniment of interpretation, which can cause confusion if the wording is modified, and there is considerable risk of unanticipated effects of the changes. If we value consistency andrationality, rather than getting what result wre individually prefer, aa a stable situation is better. Only with some degree of predictability can we realistically evaluate existing problems, or guide newcomers. Speaking for myself, I want to work in a practical way on problems, not reargue policy and guidelines from their fundamental principles every week from now to forwever.    DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Rolled out an update version, per consensus that 'guidance' is suitable. Other spelling/grammar tweaks piggybacked on it. Also you might want to copy-edit that previous post of yours, there's a bit more spelling mistakes than usual. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * the overselling actually diminishes the credibility of this essay; pitiful really. I won't stoop to dealing with this further. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that 's changes are improvements, even if they are perhaps not perfect., please don't leave the discussion. Instead, could you propose a wording that addresses your concerns (and might be acceptable for other editors here)? Where is this essay overselling and how can we address that? --Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Notability of reliable sources - new essay
I drafted
 * Notability (reliable sources).

In this documentation I raise the issue of conferring notability to a source to have its own Wikipedia article based on its popularity as a citation in Wikipedia article reference sections. I would appreciate any comments on the talk page.

This could apply to newspapers, academic journals, other periodicals, and databases which are popular as reliable sources that Wikipedia articles cite.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% sure on this. I think we should have some "page" equivalent to Special:BookSources for an RS that gets more than 100-1000 uses (and deemed RS), but still doesn't necessitate a stand-alone article. This probably applies a lot to journals. --M asem  (t) 16:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I moved it to Notability of reliable sources so it's not confused for guidance/guidelines. It raises interesting questions in general, but I'm not sure if there's anything to be done about any of it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of Criterion 1b in relation to the Directory of Open Access Journals
I want to respectfully point out that it is no longer true that the Directory of Open Access Journals is "non-selective". Since 2014 it has been weeding out poor quality journals that do not meet its best practice guidelines. For instance in 2016 it was announced that 3,300 journals had been delisted from it. It is therefore incorrect to refer to DOAJ as "non-selective" when clearly there is a lot of selectivity going on in which journals are DOAJ-indexed and which are not DOAJ-indexed.

May I propose that DOAJ-indexed journals become considerable for notability under Criterion 1b? This would be an important change to improve the global equality of what we consider 'notable'. Both Scopus and Clarivate's Web of Science indexes are well known to arbitrarily exclude the vast majority of South American journals. DOAJ is a little more inclusive of Global South journals, but also still selective of quality journals only. Metacladistics (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It is still non-selective in the sense intended for this guideline. DOAJ's criteria is basically Open + Non-predatory, regardless of impact. Scopus and Web of Science are selective because they only index (or at least aim to) the top journals. The vast majority of South American journals are not indexed by these services simply because pretty much no one follows them, unlike say Revista Mexicana de Astronomía y Astrofísica or Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas, which are indexed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Perth International Law Journal
I came across this draft in the WP:AFC queue. I wonder if members of the project could advise as to notability. As an open-access, student journal, I'm inclined to decline, but wanted to ask here first. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hard to say. The article looks general good, and most law journals/law reviews are student runs, so that's not really a strike against. WP:LAW would have insight here. It might be best to have an article on UWA International Law Club instead, and have the info about the journal there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I asked over at the LAW project. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this a policy?
This does not appear to be a policy so it does not seem to be enforceable. It describes itself as an "essay" and is not listed at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines or Category:WikiProject notability advice. Naturally this brings up the question: Why is this essay being enforced like a policy? Invasive Spices (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This belligerant wording suggests that you are in a dispute with someone over the applicability of this essay, presumably over Draft:Biological Invasions being moved to draft space for not making a clear case for notability, and over the suggestion on the draft page that you might look here for ways to make that case. You should be aware that the actual notability guideline (not essay) that would cover this topic, WP:GNG, is much more strict and demands that the journal be described in-depth (not merely by a summary number) by multiple sources that are reliably published, independent of the journal and its publisher, and independent of each other. Currently your draft has zero sources that would satisfy that guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Invasive Spices (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you have an actual question, about this essay? It looked rhetorical to me. If you really mean to ask, why is a certain editor behaving the way they are behaving, then you need to ask that editor; we're not telepaths here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Aligning the differing notability guidelines on news media
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability § Aligning WP:Notability (periodicals), WP:Notability (media), and WP:Notability (academic journals). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Canadian Medical Education Journal
I was directed here regarding the rejection of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Canadian_Medical_Education_Journal wikipedia page. I've checked the criteria, and I believe it meets all of them. Any further insight? Hickeygamez (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

ESCI vs. SCOPUS?
Given that SCOPUS is used to separate selective from nonselective journals, I like to urge the inclusion of Clarivate's Emerging Sources Citation Index (it covered 7800 titles in 2015), and of course also the A&HCI (that is, all citation indexes of the Web of Science Core Collection). From my pint of view there is no justification to generally consider a SCOPUS journal more "notable" than an ESCI journal. oc 16:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prooc (talk • contribs)
 * The ESCI is exactly for that. Emerging sources, i.e. sources which might become notable, but which aren't. That's the difference. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So in your view the private company Clarivate Analytics decides wheter a journal is notable or emerging? Really? Is that Wikipedian style? I am sorry, but your argument does not work well. The point is selection and both SCOPUS and ESCI are by far not as selective as SCIE or SSCI. That is what I refer to: SCOPUS vs. ESCI (see title), not ESCI vs. SCIE/SSCI. Best, oc 18:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that ESCI is well below Scopus in terms of selectivity, so we don't consider ESCI selective enough. SCIE is also not selective enough, generally speaking, but SSCI will be. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

SCOPUS
is so selective, that being listed auto-entitles to a standalone article? Meh. &#x222F; WBG converse 14:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think C1 needs to be changed. For example: "Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles [...] of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals" I don't know how many journals have an impact factor calculated, but it's a very large number. Are we saying that there are at least 34,346 journals that should have wikipedia articles? Natureium (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it auto-entitles to a standalone article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 35,000 seems in the right ballpark to me. Also Scopus inclusion doesn't imply an impact factor, that's computed by Journal Citation Reports. Scopus produces the SCImago Journal Rank however. Keep in mind, many of those will be treated as series (e.g. Current Opinion) or be part of a publisher entry instead. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a frequently asked question: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals)/Archive_2. fgnievinski (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and complemented 1.c based on 1.b: . fgnievinski (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Idea for Criterion 4
There are some reliable categorizations of journals by the level of reputation. For example, Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator level run by the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science (heavily used by Wikidata) categorizes journals into three levels: ordinary, distinguished, and exceptional. I suggest adding Criterion 4 to verify the notability of a journal quickly if it is in level 2 or 3 without going through the available three criteria, which are subjective and discipline-dependent. MojoDiJi (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * That's the same as Criterion 1. If DBRI points to a journal being 'exceptional', that's a clear pass of Criterion 1. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Headbomb, they're similar but not the same. Criterion 1 covers all specialized sources, but what I suggested is a speedy check through comprehensive lists. It can be implemented in Criterion 1 if establishing that listed at level 2 and 3 of Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator level automatically satisfies C1. I just wish to avoid wasting time over unnecessary and subjective discussions, as I raised the concern on Teahouse over Nano Energy. MojoDiJi (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My advice is to ignore the teahouse/AFC brouhaha and focus on the AFD. Nano Energy is not in any danger of being deleted. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , it's not a matter of danger, it wastes time and energy of people who could contribute something new instead. MojoDiJi (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not going to get 8 billion people to agree on everything. If 8 billion people agreeing is a requirement for your participation on Wikipedia, you're going to have a very very frustrating experience here. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * it has nothing to do with the agreement, it is about clear guidelines. I can legitimately nominate Journal of the American Chemical Society for deletion since the references do not justify the notability (there is not even an independent reference; the first one is not even a proper reference, and the page itself is weaker than Nano Energy). But no sane person would vote to delete this influential journal. It is waste of time. MojoDiJi (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Taking that journal to AfD would be a failure of WP:BEFORE. What counts is not the sources present in the article, but the sources that could be in the article. This journal clearly meets NJournals, so taking it to AfD would be as mistaken as taking Nano Energy to AfD (and would be just as successful). --Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * that's exactly my point! We have to reduce such mistakes to avoid wasting the time which can be spent for contributing new materials. MojoDiJi (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem. Inappropriate AfDs for academic journals are very rare and it takes just a minute to !vote "keep". --Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , it's not that simple. When I created Nano Energy, an editor moved it to draft space. I had to complain on their talk page to restore the page. It's not an ideal procedure. MojoDiJi (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, this is because there are 8 billion people on the planet, which can all edit Wikipedia. Yes you can take Journal of the American Chemical Society to AFD. And it would be kept. People are allowed to be wrong, have different opinions, or even be ignorant of current standards. See also Help:My article got nominated for deletion! if you haven't already. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * then, why do we have protected and semi-protected articles? Because too many edits/reverts are exhausting. Then, why do we have Notability (academic journals) in addition to the general notability? Because we wish to facilitate the process. Let people to be wrong as they like and see how long Wikipedia survive. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So far it's been 22 years and we're still going strong. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia survived 22 years because it followed what I stressed. All the guides, policies, discussions (like this one) reduced the mistakes. MojoDiJi (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Google Scholar for C2
Google Scholar (probably the most common resource for citations) is named as a reliable source for verifying Criterion 2.b. However, Google Scholar does not provide the number of citations to a journal (correct me if I'm wrong). Instead, you can find the h-index of journals. I think it should be clarified to help the contributors in finding sources. MojoDiJi (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * H-index is what is implied here. If you see several papers with hundreds of citations, it's a highly cited journals. If you see a smattering of citations, it's (probably) not. But because GS is incomplete, that probably not is not a nail in the coffin, since it could still be highly cited/influential, just outside of things that are covered by GS. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Headbomb, that's my point! If it implies h-index, it should state h-index not citations to journals. Then, Scopus should not be on the list because Scopus reports the number of citations rather than h-index. The purpose of a guide is to lead people to the sources where they can get what is needed. MojoDiJi (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * H-index is based on citations to journals. It's one of the many ways of quantifying it, not the only way. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , H-index is not synonymous to citations. H-index is heavily in favor of older journals. The guide should clearly lead people to where they can find h-index and where absolute number of citations. MojoDiJi (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed it's not, and that's why we're not saying h-index, but citations. As for 'favoring older journals' I don't really see what's that got to do with the price of beans, especially if you're bringing this up as a negative. It's not. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , newer journals have a low h-index no matter how influential they are because they have a lower number of papers in a shorter lifespan to have many papers with many citations. MojoDiJi (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If they have a low h-index, then by very definition, they haven't had the time to become influential yet. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * it is utterly incorrect. New journals can be devoted to new topics and influential in their emerging fields. They should be compared with their counterparts. On the other hand, some most influential journals publish a limited number of papers and their h-index is not as high as their counterparts. For instance, CA with an impact factor of 508 is the exceptionally influential but its h-index is not as high as its impact factor. MojoDiJi (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel I'm talking past you. Yes, new journals can be notable. Citations won't show this however, and instead in those cases we rely on indexing in selective indexes like JCR (i.e. impact factor) and Scopus (i.e. CiteScore). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * believe it or not, scientometrics is an active area of research in which researchers are investigating various factors for more than 40 years. H-index, citations, IF, CiteScore or any other factor is not the ultimate answer. Anyhow, this is beside the point. As I said in the first line, a guide should direct people where to find what. It is useless to say citations are a good factor and Google Scholar is a reliable source; h-index is a good factor and Scopus is a reliable source. MojoDiJi (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that citations are a good factor and Google Scholar is one of the many possible ways to show that. For example, if GS show an h index of 3, that's not good enough to show notability. If GS shows an h index of 750, showing it is near the top of its field, that's enough.
 * The criteria are not exclusive. If there's a bias in a certain field, or for a certain journal, that just means GS fails to show notability for that journal. It's not a blocker. If a journal has an h index of 3 in GS, but it's got an impact factor of 12.5, the impact factor trumps the GS.
 * If you don't understand this, I suggest moving on from the area of academic journals and moving on to something you enjoy editing. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Is abstracting and indexing useful?
The criteria for the notability of academic journals are much stricter than the conditions for admission to any indexing system. As a result, all journals with standalone articles on Wikipedia are indexed by major indexing systems.

Visually, the largest parge of most journal articles on Wikipedia is the voluminous section of Abstracting and Indexing. I do not say not mentioning them, but is it really necessary/useful to allocate such a large part of the articles for something which is almost the same for all journals? MojoDiJi (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "Almost the same for all journals". It varies a lot from journal to journal. And yes, indexing matters. Indexing is what tells us who considers the journal important. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How many journals have a Wikipedia page and are not indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded and Scopus? Only very low level journals cannot get indexed. MojoDiJi (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Loads. They could be indexed in Science Citation Index instead. Or they could not be included in any WOS-related indices at all. Take for example Journal of Cosmology, or Journal des savants indexed in neither. Inclusion in SCI/SCIE/Scopus shouldn't be surprising given we use inclusion in either as a (usually) sufficient criteria for meeting WP:NJOURNALS, but there's loads of counter examples and other indices. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's mark this page as "historical"
I've had enough. I am of the opinion that this is a pseudoWP:PAG and that it is actively confusing the community. I believe the rules it presents are arcane, arbitrary, sometimes nonsensical, and have let to a bloat on Wikipedia with a proliferation of terrible (non-)articles on no-name academic journals. I argue further that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS has formed here, so a broader community WP:RfC is in order. I invite everyone who has any stake or interest in this to help draft a neutral call here. jps (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I concur. For the sake of centralizing the discussion, let me repeat my comment from WP:FTN: while reading through the old deletion discussion, I've learned that WP:NJOURNALS was intended to be a guideline, which is why it is written as one. In the ensuing discussion it failed to gather support. It should have been tagged as then, but got tagged instead as , even though it was never intended as one. Now it's too late to fix this mistake, so the only solution is to mark it as.
 * Hopefully this will finally stop editors confusing it with an actual guideline. This is not an idle concern, this confusion happens frequently and causes actual damage, as illustrated by the recent AfD for Physics Essays. Tercer (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an active page used in near all deletion discussions. It's the opposite of a historical page. That you don't like it is not a reason for getting rid of it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How do you propose we frame the discussion then? Tercer (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't. The page is fine as is. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You can't forbid us from discussing it. Your input would be valuable for the RfC, so that discussion doesn't get bogged down in formal matters. Tercer (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In situations like this, I think it is fine to note that the party who wants to keep the status quo has refused to address the issues outlined by others and in fact doesn't seem to be engaging in the discussion in good faith. So it's still valuable input for writing the RfC, in any case. jps (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't we edit the article to make sure that it conforms to NOTABILITY? TFD (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried that avenue some years ago. The pagewatchers are reticent to allow for any edits, but go ahead and propose some below and see if that can be worked as well. jps (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * As I have said before (sorry, don't remember where, I'm starting to lose track of all the different places where this discussion is taking place), it may be instructive to have a look at the archives of this talk page: While some people (like several editors above) find this essay too permissive and would like every journal article to meet GNG (which would kill 95% of decent journals, but leave a large proportion of predatory ones), others find it too restrictive, arguing that every journal that is being used as a source on WP should have an article. As such, the current essay is w=a workable compromise. As such, I fear that the current discussion is going to go the same way and will, after wasting a gazillion electrons, result in yet another "no consensus". --Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that this is hard work and I promise I have WP:RTFA. But the point I keep coming back to is that this essay never gained consensus, and it is now becoming a problem because the issues that prevented it from gaining consensus have not been addressed. The fallback position should not be "no consensus = let's refer to this as though it is a WP:PAG" especially when it is used essentially to overrule actual guidelines like WP:FRINGE. The desire to have every journal that is used as a source have its own standalone article is a strange one. WP:NBOOKS, for example, doesn't seem to suffer from this problem and is much more workable as an understandable WP:PAG. WP:TNT may be the right way forward. Y'all have created a web of criteria and explanations that are serving, it seems to me at least, as its own separate system from the rest of Wikipedia. I don't think that's good practice. jps (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "The desire to have every journal that is used as a source have its own standalone article is a strange one." That's a position espoused by very few people, and certainly not by this page. It also does not overrule WP:FRINGE. Find any reliable source criticizing Physics Essays and everyone will be happy to include it. Also see my proposal from my last ping. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating "Find any reliable source criticizing Physics Essays" as though that is somehow in compliance with WP:NFRINGE. I have explained enough times now why that is not the case. If you don't want to admit that it is not the case, that's fine, but it doesn't somehow make what you are saying correct or even coherent. jps (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You said WP:FRINGE, not WP:NFRINGE, so I said WP:FRINGE. And per WP:FRINGE Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm finding it increasingly difficult to accept that you are discussing these matters in good faith. WP:NFRINGE is a link to a specific part of WP:FRINGE. To harp on that distinction has gotta be a new one. But more to the point, the guideline is quite explicit about the idea that a lack of independent sources is a decent argument for removing problematic content completely. Again, you can choose to ignore that this is a main thrust of the thresholds discussed, but the fact that you continually are bringing up red herrings and nitpicking just makes me think that you are taking this way too personally and are not accepting that there are real problems here that may need fixing. jps (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an abuse of process. Historical ≠ WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The fact that this does not represent consensus for notability is adequately represented by the fact that it is marked as an essay rather than as a subject notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The closer on the last AfD recommended that this is what those of us who think there are problems should do. Granted that was in 2017, but I see nothing much has changed since then. If anything, it is has gotten worse. I really do not think y'all have the consensus you think you do with this essay and, like it or not, it is being used confusingly in discussions on this site. The only way we are going to be able to tell if you do have consensus is by having a discussion that tries to get more input from outside of this space that the "usual suspects" are occupying. jps (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you had some difficulty reading my comment, because you are argumentatively contradicting the supposed consensus for this essay, when I explicitly stated that it does not represent a consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okaaay. So what would you have us do when this "non-consensus" essay is being used in discussions as though it is a consensus WP:PAG? Should we ask for an edit filter or something? jps (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing. Anyone is free to cite whatever standard they feel applies (see also WP:1Q). You can cite WP:NGAMES in a deletion discussion, despite the fact that 'it's only an essay'. If you don't agree with it, cite something else. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Historically, when conflicts have arisen on Wikipedia where it seems that people are gaming the "free to cite whatever standard they feel applies" rule, the community gets together to have a conversation about whether we should make a statement about the standard being deprecated or having consensus. But the group most in favor of this essay seem to be particularly unwilling to have this conversation. It's very noticeable. jps (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Historically, we have seen many attempts to ban certain arguments or people who make those arguements from deletion discussions, by people who disagree with those arguments. That, and not the arguments themselves, consitutes gaming the system. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your desire to avoid policing speech or whatever, but for as long as there have been rules at this site there have been people complaining about poor application of them. WP:NOT is arguably a page invented to do exactly what you are complaining about. You may not like it, but it is a part of our culture, and I think you are in the minority of users who argue that a wisdom-of-the-crowds approach is key. A point to note is that closers are tasked with making sure that the arguments in AfDs are based in coherent WP:PAG arguments. Marking this page as won't necessarily stop people from referring to it, but it may give closers a chance to identify problematic arguments at a glance (lord knows they have enough on their plate as it is). jps (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do find it rather strange that since this proposal was rejected back in 2009 no effort was made to fix its obvious problems and get it accepted as a guideline. It does seem like an attempt to game the system and use it as a fake WP:SNG without achieving consesus. Tercer (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So, you are accusing a group of editors of gaming the system? And intentionally foisting a fake SNG onto other editors in discussions? Please see NPA and AFG. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean, we could apply Hanlon's Razor here, but I think the problem is apparent that the essay as it is being used is confusing users. I have my anecdata about it here: Thank you,  for explaining how you see this essay. The question I have is, then, what do we do about this kind of thing? The claim was that "The fact that this does not represent consensus for notability is adequately represented by the fact that it is marked as an essay rather than as a subject notability guideline". I think that claim is false at least marginally. jps (talk)


 * Rather opening a RfC for every SNG(or SNE in this case) that exists, how about changing the AfD process itself? I believe adding a clarification to WP:AfD or WP:SNG would have greater impact. Ca talk to me! 00:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SNG and WP:AfD are already crystal clear. The problem is the existence of this fake guideline and the editors that insist on pretending that it is an actual guideline. If other fake SNGs exist you probably should open an RfC for them. Tercer (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not historical if it's being invoked and relied upon. For my own part, I've tried never to invoke it in a way that implies it has an overwhelming consensus behind it, instead calling it "advice" or the like, and arguing that the advice it offers is applicable to the case at hand. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody is claiming it is historical, this is just the formal way of deprecating it. To quote the closer of the deletion discussion: If you wish to prevent this page from being used, seek consensus to have it tagged with. Tercer (talk) Tercer (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, but wouldn't it make more sense to work toward an advice page that is beneficial, rather than ditching the entire thing with no apparent statement about why? I'm trying to see everybody's perspective here (and finding that I disagree with everyone about some aspect of the situation); I'm just not clear on how slapping a template on the page is a constructive step. Just because a discussion-closer from years ago suggested it doesn't mean that it would be clearly communicative. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a laudable goal, but a quick glance at the talk page archives will convince you that it will never happen (EDIT: no need to look at the archives, the current discussion demonstrates it very well). The fundamental problem with this fake guideline is that it contradicts WP:GNG, and it is one of the main reasons it failed to become a real guideline. This is not fixable, because contradicting GNG is an explicit goal of the editors who wrote it. For some unfathomable reason they want journals that fail GNG to have an article nevertheless.
 * I don't see any solution other than discarding the entire thing. Deleting it, tagging it historical, I don't care. I'm just going with the suggestion of the discussion-closer in order to avoid getting bogged down in a discussion about proper formal process. Tercer (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't contradict GNG, it supplements it and explains what is considered a reliable source in the field. Indexing services are those sources, in particular the premier selective services like the Science Citation Index, Scopus, the Social Science Citation Index and so on. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * is explicit that it contradicts GNG, and that's the goal: While some people (like several editors above) find this essay too permissive and would like every journal article to meet GNG (which would kill 95% of decent journals, but leave a large proportion of predatory ones). The GNG is also explicit that you need significant coverage: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Being one item in a gigantic database obviously doesn't count.
 * And must I remind you that we landed here in the first place because there are no sources from which to write an article about Physics Essays, despite it satisfying NJOURNALS? It is impossible to satisfy the GNG and nevertheless lack sources. So please don't try to gaslight me. Tercer (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Indexing services are never, ever significant coverage. There has been a consistent and VERY strong consensus that mere appearance in directories or databases fails to count toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors may be interested in the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ...and whether appearance in a database counts towards GNG depends on the database. Inclusion in the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man database (sample database entry) is an excellent indication of notability.  I don't think we've ever deleted an article on a subject that was known to appear in OMIM. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Nobody is claiming it is historical, this is just the formal way of deprecating it." That's highly tendentious and pointy. What we have here is a guideline/essay/whatever that works great 99%+ of the time and has a handful of edge cases. Hard cases make bad law, and a <1% disagreement in outcomes is not a reason to can this page.
 * Remember that policy/guidelines/essays whatever should reflects practice, not the other way around. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is highly tendentious and pointy, then the fault is with the closer of the last AfD and maybe we should just run another one? I'm all in favor of User:XOR&'s suggestion that we should edit this page so that it works for all of us and then can be elevated to a guideline. But the last time I tried that, I was reverted so many times that I ended up just walking away and now we're back and just as annoyed. So what would you have those of us who have complaints do? Are you really of the opinion than we can all just go pound sand -- that we're all acting in such bad faith that nothing we're saying has any value at all? Because that's the register I'm getting from you. jps (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Last time around, just like this time, you were trying to delete/invalidate the page outright. It's rather hard to have a discussion with someone who's default position is scorched earth. There were also many changes that occurred as a result of that discussion. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool. I tried out an edit. It's infelicitous. Some may even call it "gauche". But it is the sort of thing I think there may be consensus for. The essay starts out well in arguing that we need some serious mention but then seems to take a dangerous turn in automatically conferring that "serious notice" to simple indexing. Hey, I think good indexing is fabulous. It helps set the scene. But if that is the only source? Whew! That seems a bridge too far. jps (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel that's already covered in WP:NJOURNALS. I don't see the need for repetition. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Then how do you explain that Physics Essays is only sourced to indexing right now? What am I missing in the conversation that would allow that you agree with the ugly new subsection I wrote to the point of finding it repetitive and, yet, you find that our article on Physics Essays is not demonstrating this feature? jps (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Because many, including me, considered JCR and Scopus to be good enough sources for purpose of showing WP:N. You have a different opinion. That's fine. The majority disagrees with you. That's life. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems to be in contradiction with my new section, no? I mean, that's cool if you think the majority disagrees, but I don't see how JCR and Scopus simply including a journal in a list suddenly confers notability on the journal. I cannot think of anything comparable in any other standard. In fact, such approaches are explicitly rejected in WP:NBOOKS, for example (just being on a list of recently published books is not good enough for inclusion, e.g.). I actually don't think the "majority" has considered this point. I think the "majority" has been misled by this page into thinking that this is the careful consideration of consensus... which, I think, it is not.
 * So, for you, inclusion in Scopus or inclusion in Journal Citation Reports are automatic ways to confer notability on a subject. Are there any other indexing and abstract services that you hold in similar high regard? What standard are you using to decide when simple inclusion on one of these lists is good enough?
 * jps (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The standard is that these sources are independent, reliably published, and provide detailed summary pages on the journals that they index that could reasonably be interpreted as in-depth. As such, they plausibly meet the standard of GNG that the journal is covered by multiple in-depth independent reliable sources.
 * You are entirely within your rights to disagree on whether the coverage is in-depth. (You could also disagree on whether it is independent or reliable but I would be within my rights to interpret that disagreement as tendentious.) But as it stands, this essay is merely setting out the viewpoint that it is in-depth. Your over-the-top attempts to censor that opinion from Wikipedia deletion discussions are noted but inappropriate. Please continue to allow consensus to be determined by an actual consensus of Wikipedia editor opinions, rather than forcing the matter by silencing all opinions that you personally happen to disagree with. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You seemed to miss my drift. What constitutes a detailed summary page? Is it this? The single entry in a table from JCR on page 200 of this document? If no, how do you justify that any summary page is "detailed" for any of the sources chosen for Physics Essays? jps (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Your first link (including all of its three tabs, not just the landing page) could reasonably count as detailed. So could ScimagoJR. A line listing only a journal name, issn, and country is not detailed, in my opinion.
 * Another plausible opinion (I'm not sure who holds it; I don't) is that the fact that these indexes collect and index masses of data about the papers published in these journals is in itself in-depth coverage. It's in-depth because it is an index of large amounts of data; in this view depth does not require analysis.
 * But this is not the place to try to reconcile differing opinions about what is or is not detailed, or to somehow "justify" the opinions and censure those whose opinions cannot be justified. Those opinions obviously differ. This essay conveniently summarizes one line of reasoning, providing a shortcut that can be used to summarize it instead of detailing it over again by the holders of that opinion in each AfD where it might come up. That is what notability essays are for. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Jesus, man, if not here then where? C'mon, we obviously have a lot of disagreement here and I have been trying to be accommodating of the other side, but there's only so much "let's not talk about this" I can take. It's cool if you don't want to be part of the conversation, but can you stop making meta-pronouncements about where and when such conversations should be allowed to occur. Please?
 * Anyway, I'm a little confused by your "all three tabs" comment. The three tabs, as far as I can see, just show aggregate data in comparison to certain arcane metrics about the journal in question. There is, as far as I can tell, no discussion whatsoever about journal content. Seems like this is should be a pretty big part of an idea article written about a journal, but YMMV. As for Scimagojr... I can't make heads or tails of that bizarre website. It also looks like it is just a programmed content aggregator. The summary of the journal looks like it is lifted wholesale from the journal website. All the metrics are copied from other sources. Not exactly an "independent" source in that regard, as far as I can tell, but maybe you know more about it than I?
 * So this just goes to my overall point. These sources seem middling to poor. I feel like I'm in an alternate reality where Wikipedia editors who are usually really excited about high-quality sourcing are accepting really slipshod examples to argue in favor of standalone articles that seem to have no promise to go anywhere. But maybe you know something I don't. Maybe you've seen a thousand blooms from similarly sparse stalks. If so, examples would be nice.
 * jps (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a notability essay that offers zero basis in P&Gs outside of IAR... JoelleJay (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's just, like, your opinion, man. Mine is that it is based on WP:GNG and clarifies what kinds of sources have been deemed to count towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The essay does not presume GNG coverage, it asserts notability directly through meeting criteria that do not have any basis in secondary independent SIGCOV. There is no expectation whatsoever that any particular indexing service actually provides SIGCOV; in fact, index inclusion is set up entirely separately from coverage: A journal can be considered notable if it can be demonstrated to have significant coverage in the media, or demonstrated to have a significant impact in its field. This is usually verified through the journal's inclusion in selective bibliographic databases and selective indexing and abstracting services, or by being the subject of significant commentary in independent scholarly publications, news media, books, theses, and other sources. A hand-wave towards "notability" being "in the spirit of GNG" does not equate to a claim that the information provided by an indexing service constitutes GNG coverage. If such material counted as SIGCOV it would count as SIGCOV in all non-fringe reliable indices regardless of comprehensiveness.
 * Moreover, journals are businesses, so should be subject to NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How is an indexing service that a journal applies to be indexed in, and may even pay a fee toward, in any way independent! How can catalogue entries like what you linked, where literally all info is auto-generated primary metrics from some database and there is not a single sentence of prose written by a human specifically about the subject, let alone anything contextualizing the data, significant coverage (Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry) that provides direct thought and reflection based on primary sources and contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. And if that constitutes SIGCOV, then why would an entry with identical "depth" be considered "not SIGCOV" if it appeared in a less-selective index?
 * If you want to argue that the mere fact that a journal is included in a particular citation index is indicative of coverage existing, then whatever(*), but those entries are manifestly not SIGCOV in IRS according to every other SNG and the GNG.
 * (*)My counterargument to this is: why should Wikipedia provide free advertising, boosted visibility, and implied legitimacy to a business based on its successfully applying to an indexing service? Especially when NCORP says even inclusion in far more selective indices, like being listed at the NYSE, explicitly does not exempt a subject from SIGCOV sourcing requirements. JoelleJay (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How on earth is this significant secondary independent coverage? It's literally just a catalogue entry! The essay also makes it very clear that it considers inclusion in selective indexes a sufficient and separate criterion from receiving SIGCOV, so it's essentially acting as a de facto grantor of notability, not a predictor of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * PubMed has never been considered sufficient, both in terms of selectivity or coverage. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It literally contains more bits of info than Scopus. JoelleJay (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In what sense? PubMed appears to list only the publication data and holdings for the issues of the journal. Scopus lists its ranking among other journals with a similar focus, a five year trend in its citation statistics, and the number of papers it published in each year since 1996. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * well take a look at this . Be sure to scroll down. What do you think about this? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't this just a paper count? I am trying to wrap my head around why people think that is particularly remarkable. Are we really that bereft of soul that we think we can write articles based on the number of papers that appeared in a journal from year-to-year? I am truly flummoxed. jps (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is also a ranking over time of how well-cited the journal is in its field. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. But what magnificent prose are we supposed to compose about that? I just don't understand how people are counting this as a serious source about the journal. It looks like a list of sports statistics. jps (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see some lists, numbers, and graphs all autogenerated by the database. None of that is significant secondary coverage. There is in fact overwhelming consensus, from multiple discussions including a global RfC as well as thousands of AfDs, that sites like soccerway or footballdatabase.eu and other pro sports databases that may provide much more detail (of the form used by the indexing services) never count as SIGCOV or otherwise contribute towards notability, even when they are highly selective (like restricted to members of national teams, e.g. National-football-teams.com). JoelleJay (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe that sports consensus is wrong. There is far too much thinking of the form "we should cover a selective subset of topics in this area, but we have sources that cover more than that, so we must find excuses for why those sources somehow don't count" in this sort of discussion. Really, what we should be thinking instead is "we want to cover a selective subset of topics, but judging notability by sourcing isn't working for that, so let's find some other way to judge significance". But if we take one more step back, we might ask "do we really not want to cover established academic journals? why not?" For the sports articles, the answer was clear: because we had too many dubiously-accurate sub-stubs. But for a well-established academic journal, what's the actual problem we are trying to solve? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The main issue with athlete microstubs has never been that they are "dubiously-accurate". It is that far too many are indiscriminate directory entries because the inclusion standards for individual sports were set so low that nothing beyond database records and routine, trivial coverage exists for many subjects. As long as we have completionist fans who want to see all members of their special interest represented as standalones on wikipedia, we will never have a usable non-coverage-based notability threshold for sportspeople or any other topic that does not ultimately result in a large number of articles that fail NOTDIRECTORY. JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't this just a paper count? I am trying to wrap my head around why people think that is particularly remarkable. Are we really that bereft of soul that we think we can write articles based on the number of papers that appeared in a journal from year-to-year? I am truly flummoxed. jps (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is also a ranking over time of how well-cited the journal is in its field. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. But what magnificent prose are we supposed to compose about that? I just don't understand how people are counting this as a serious source about the journal. It looks like a list of sports statistics. jps (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see some lists, numbers, and graphs all autogenerated by the database. None of that is significant secondary coverage. There is in fact overwhelming consensus, from multiple discussions including a global RfC as well as thousands of AfDs, that sites like soccerway or footballdatabase.eu and other pro sports databases that may provide much more detail (of the form used by the indexing services) never count as SIGCOV or otherwise contribute towards notability, even when they are highly selective (like restricted to members of national teams, e.g. National-football-teams.com). JoelleJay (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe that sports consensus is wrong. There is far too much thinking of the form "we should cover a selective subset of topics in this area, but we have sources that cover more than that, so we must find excuses for why those sources somehow don't count" in this sort of discussion. Really, what we should be thinking instead is "we want to cover a selective subset of topics, but judging notability by sourcing isn't working for that, so let's find some other way to judge significance". But if we take one more step back, we might ask "do we really not want to cover established academic journals? why not?" For the sports articles, the answer was clear: because we had too many dubiously-accurate sub-stubs. But for a well-established academic journal, what's the actual problem we are trying to solve? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The main issue with athlete microstubs has never been that they are "dubiously-accurate". It is that far too many are indiscriminate directory entries because the inclusion standards for individual sports were set so low that nothing beyond database records and routine, trivial coverage exists for many subjects. As long as we have completionist fans who want to see all members of their special interest represented as standalones on wikipedia, we will never have a usable non-coverage-based notability threshold for sportspeople or any other topic that does not ultimately result in a large number of articles that fail NOTDIRECTORY. JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, the problem as I see it are poorly-considered journals that are agenda-driven, pay the fee to get indexed, and publish absolute garbage. Physics Essays is just the latest example of that, but others pop up from time to time and will continue to if we don't acknowledge that this is a phenomenon. Given that Wikipedia has a strict no original research rule, including those articles would tend towards an abrogation of editorial duties, in my opinion, which is largely where notability itself came from as a concept. The point is that these journals have an agenda to trick people into thinking that they are more serious and more mainstream than they actually are. The general reaction by the community is to ignore them. Wikipedia should follow that lead. jps (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Policy already requires that local consensuses be ignored, so you don't need to shift the burden of starting an RfC to yourself. If this essay is being used disruptively, perhaps you could propose userfication or deletion at WP:MfD, though I'm not familiar with the rules there. Avilich (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To which local consensus are you referring? Here is a list of the participants for WikiProject Academics . Here is a list of the new articles of which there are 62. This project has wide-ranging support and participation. I am not seeing a local consensus here. And I am not seeing any sort of disruption as a result of these activities. In fact it is a well organized WikiProject. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Steve, what's your explanation as to what happened at Articles for deletion/Physics Essays? Doesn't it seem a bit weird? If this isn't an instance of LOCALCONSENSUS operating against usual norms, it is evidence that I am totally out of touch with what is qualifying for serious, independent sourcing. It was not for nothing that I said that it looks like WP:NFRINGE was superceded. Maybe the global consensus at Wikipedia is that NJOURNALS essay works better than NFRINGE. That's cool. But it means I've been in such an incredible information bubble that I'm going to need some help to find my way out. jps (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be evidence that the written rules (e.g., the GNG's insistence upon secondary sources, written at a time when many editors believed that breaking news was 'secondary' because the reporter got the information 'secondhand' from the eyewitnesses) don't align with the wider community's actual practices.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikiprojects are a local consensus: For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay. Much broader input from the wider community is required for an essay to be elevated to a guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (This is policy). JoelleJay (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * JolleJay, OK, if it doesn't get elevated to a guideline then it remains an essay. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Non-guideline essays are cited in AfD rationales all the time, e.g., WP:TNT. Pointing to one is just a way of saying, "Here is an opinion that I think is relevant and that I agree with." The typical response to an essay that one or more editors vehemently disagree with is, I think, to write an opposing essay. Then, when a topic comes up to which they are relevant, the question of which has the rhetorical upper hand gets argued out until people are too tired to argue any longer. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I get that. Hell, there are a few essays I've written that I use in that fashion. But what is the procedure then for what to do when there is controversy about a non-guideline essay? The closest I can think of is when the rightwingers went off and wrote WP:ACTIVIST as a counter to WP:ADVOCACY. Should I write WP:NACADEMICJOURNALS with the exhortation to only write about journals when there are serious sources that are written about them? That doesn't seem right, but I'm also clearly not allowed to edit this essay either. I'm shut out of being a part of the conversation which means either there is a problem with the in-group (LOCALCONSENSUS) or there is a problem with the out-group (WP:TE). I'd like to understand which is which... or, ideally, come to some sort of synthesis. jps (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been disagreeing about how to edit the article that set this all off with the other editors who seem to think this essay is generally good advice, so if there's an in-group, I probably won't be able to renew my membership card. Just speaking for myself, I can see the merit in adding a criterion that says something like, In rare cases, creating an article about a journal that technically meets one of the conditions here but about which little overall can be said may grant that journal an impression of respectability that it does not deserve. Since the Physics Essays article now has a reference calling it the nonsense that it is, this edge case is no longer a pressing concern there, but it might come up again. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Part of what I hope to get out of this conversation is an agreement to do something so that concerns like mine can actually be articulated in a way that don't get shut down in other discussions. I think your proposed wording is hedged a bit much, for my liking, but if that's what consensus bares I can live with it. Right now, it seems like there is no budging the elephant. If someone finds an entry for a wacko journal in Scopus, article is a go! I get that this guideline has also been used to nice effect to eliminate problematic content too. Wonderful. But I am still not particularly pleased with the sparseness of Physics Essays. Maybe I'm just not good at finding sources about journals, though, and maybe it really is the case that there are good sources out there when these indexing criteria are met. Others argued as much about WP:NPOL and state legislators in a way that I found surprising but had to admit I knew not much about. jps (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That phrasing was off the top of my head, and I'm certainly not committed to it. I do think cases like the one that prompted all this are rare, but we wouldn't necessarily have to say so, for example; that's just my impression from what's coming to mind at the moment. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (jps.) It can be argued that the result of that AfD was a local consensus. And I don't know where else to go with that. If someone wants to AfD it again, I think they are free to do so. --Steve Quinn (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, to a point. The cited arguments starting with a number of editors I highly respect pointed back to this essay. And, further, the arguments continue to be made in a way that makes me think there is something bizarre about the way this essay is constructed/treated. Maybe it is me, but I am very concerned that a group of editors seem to be taken with sourcing that is very akin to the sourcing that this project has rejected for sports-related articles and it seems that there may be portions of the community accepting these criteria simply because, well, the subject is nominally *academia* and since academics are mostly the ones writing about this stuff, they're probably smart enough to get this right. I think BDuke was deferring to this essay and project because of this. I think others might as well. This looks to me like it may be groupthink run amok. But if I'm wrong, I want to understand why. jps (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why should biographies of sports people be evaluated the same way as academic journals? I've stretched an analogy or two in my day, but that makes no sense to me. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't they be? I think they're probably equally as important culturally (possibly sports having more general population interest, but still). Anyway, the main thrust of this point is that aggregated statistics don't make for good sources regardless of the topic. jps (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what equal cultural importance means in this context. My point is that the two areas are entirely different qualitatively, so I don't see how a precedent for one translates to the other. I would also disagree with the idea that aggregated statistics always make for bad sources. (Population demographics for cities, box-office returns for films, even performance statistics for sports people deemed notable by the current criteria... They might make for dry prose, but sometimes they're what an article ought to provide.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that we can't use these sources! Indeed, sports is illustrative because they use those kinds of sources all the time. I'm just saying that in the context of sports articles, when the only sources about an obscure player are the stats, that's seen as evidence for a lack of notability. Would that we could see our way to such determination. jps (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ජපස,."Groupthink run amok." That is a good one. I hope you don't mind I found that to be laugh out loud funny. I think because it was unexpected. It could be that academics are writing about nominally academia. This I don't know. One would have to analyze the membership for a start. Then maybe take a look at the article creators to see where they tend to edit and which projects they belong to. Perhaps it is an attraction to academia that is a motivator. Why not? Also, I don't see a correlation between excluded databases for sports articles and selective databases used in this project. So, that is a point of view for you. In any case, what can I say? One person's treasure is another person's trash (ha ha). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear, the sports articles do use those databases. They just can't be used to determine notability. An obscure player who ended up in a few games in one weird year doesn't deserve an article. A journal that ended up indexed and no one else cared to write anything about? Feels like maybe that doesn't deserve an article either. jps (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, you're welcome to propose wording for this essay (of course). Just open a section on this page or over at the WikProject Academic Journals talk page. I'm not sure which is the better option. I prefer the latter. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but WikiProject Academic Journals did not land on a proper page the first time I put it in the search bar. I wonder if it is a bug in the search functionality. jps (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * When I put those exact words that you have above, Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals, into the search bar it worked. But, when I only entered WikiProject Academic Journals that didn't work. Did you end up with a red link at the top of a bunch of destination suggestions? And it looks like you have access to the page based on the wiki link you provided in your post.--Steve Quinn (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The indices that the essay currently says are selective enough to count for wiki-notability require that a journal have been around a while (four years in the case of CiteScore). I don't think there's a problem analogous to the obscure player who walked onto the field once in 1906. A criterion about having been selectively indexed for at least a certain length of time might be worth considering (again, just an idea off the top of my head). Another way in which Physics Essays was unusual is that there was no obvious merge target. In a case where there's just not much to say about a journal, one option is to shuffle it off into the article about the publisher or the society that operates it. That way, we still get the benefits of making it linkable in bibliographies, etc., without giving it a stand-alone page. The publisher of Physics Essays doesn't do anything else, and poking around the articles in the pseudoscience cluster didn't find any candidates. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The rejection of sports databases includes those selective for contemporary professional sportspeople who have competed on their national or premier-level teams multiple times; it's not just those where an obscure player who walked onto the field once in 1906 might appear. The consensus has been that the detailed aggregation of stats and autogenerated metrics provided even by the most selective databases does not constitute SIGCOV because no person is providing significant independent secondary analysis in their own words in any given entry. For databases where some entries do include substantial prose commentary by an independent author (like some cricket dbs), it is required that editors actually demonstrate that the entry on an individual goes well beyond mere stats.
 * We have the same expectations of actual SIGCOV at NASTRO too, which explicitly excludes being listed in a database as a direct criterion for notability: Being listed in a database does not make an object notable. Rather, even inclusion in historically important selective catalogues only presumes notability, which still must be established through significant commentary in reliable sources, such as being one of the primary targets of a study with in-depth discussion (beyond discovery and basic parameters).
 * If the bulk of the DUE/BALANCED info we can write about a topic is just repeating raw stats from a directory, the topic fails NOTDIRECTORY, regardless of how "important" it seems it should be. JoelleJay (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The page can use some (minor) edits, but otherwise the page is fine as it is. Since, academic writing and publishing occurs on a very broad spectrum, one size fits all is very challenging. This provides a very vital guidelines, hence it should not be marked as "historical" as it is very relevant essay. Nanosci (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * In re these journals have an agenda to trick people into thinking that they are more serious and more mainstream than they actually are. The general reaction by the community is to ignore them. Wikipedia should follow that lead. – Should we? Maybe we shouldn't.  Maybe we should be thinking that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good Wikipedia editors to do nothing.  Maybe we should be thinking about the advantages of saying that predatory journals are predatory, that publishers of nonsense have published nonsense, and so forth.
 * This may be difficult, as we can't say anything that reliable sources don't say, but I frankly find Physics Essays, in its current form, far more useful than nothing. Imagine an editor innocently citing a paper from that journal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw someone earlier this year saying that citing a source in an article is some sort of endorsement by Wikipedia, and so we should only cite sources that make us look good. I wonder if that's the same idea here:  If you have a Wikipedia article saying that a journal publishes articles "widely rejected by physicists" and "in contradiction to mainstream physics" and "has been accused of charging authors for publication", then that's somehow making them look good.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed phrasing
The preceding discussion convinced me that there's little support for entirely discarding this essay, but a lot of support for fixing its core problem, the incompatibility with WP:GNG and complete disregard for WP:SIGCOV. Accordingly, I propose the following phrasing for the RfC:
 * Should WP:NJOURNALS be amended so that merely being indexed or having an impact factor will no longer imply notability?

More specifically, criteria 1.b and 1.c need to be rewritten. By the way, they do a mockery of Criterion 1, that they're supposed to remark upon. Criterion 1 says "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area", which is perfectly reasonable. But defining influential to mean only that's indexed or has an impact factor? That's ridiculous. In any case, should we go ahead with this phrasing? Tercer (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure, I see no problems. Ca talk to me! 08:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. That's like saying inclusion in the Forbes 500 is not a sign of notability. Indexing in selective databases is the primary marker of the notability of journals and always has been the criteria by which librarians and scientists determine whether journals are worth giving a shit about. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Everybody already knows that you are against fixing NJOURNALS, there's no need to keep repeating it. Here I'm only asking about what the question should be, you'll have your chance to !vote no when the RfC goes live. Tercer (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That presumes NJOURNALS needs fixing to begin with, which it doesn't. If you disagree with this essay, write your own. This has been a core component of NJOURNALS since its inception and 2-3 editors being pissed about the outcome of one deletion discussion in a corner case is not reason to invalidate it, and usurp the opinion of hundreds of people in deletion discussions over the years.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You know very well that this isn't limited to 2-3 editors. NJOURNALS has been controversial since it's inception, and failed to become a guideline, precisely because of this incompatibility with GNG. As you are well aware, the talk page of NJOURNALS is full of people trying to fix it, and you always adamantly refusing.
 * This is not the opinion of hundreds of people, this is your opinion. You are talking about it as though it were an actual guideline supported by consensus when it's most emphatically not. Tercer (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Again, you don't need to do an RfC, because this is not a guideline and carries no weight. Not to mention that most people who show up in an RfC over an essay will be the essay's adherents anyway. If the essay is being used to uphold a local consensus, then this is a conduct issue. Avilich (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are someone else thinks this is a conduct issue then you or someone else should take this to ANI. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Tercer, if you think that journals should have some other form of sourcing than the form of sourcing that is most often available for journals, or that we should cover significantly fewer journals, write your own essay. Essays are for expressing opinions that are widely held but not uniform consensus. That is obviously the case for this essay. You obviously disagree with it. That does not require fixing and it does not require hijacking the essay to reflect your opinion instead of someone else's. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * RfC for essays isn't unheard of; WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources had a similar problem where editors treated the essay like a guideline while the consensus on its validity was unclear. Ca talk to me! 00:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not problematic for AfD participants to refer to essays as a shortcut for explaining their beliefs about how the actual notability guidelines should be interpreted. For instance, we see WP:HAMMER or WP:HEY invoked all the time. They are not the guidelines that notability actually rests on, but they explain why a participant thinks a specific article has failed to meet or now does meet (respectively) those guidelines. Because this kind of behavior is not a problem, it does not require fixing. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with this essay isn't that people link to it, but its the fact that it contradicts established guidelines.
 * If a journal meets any of the following criteria, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, it qualifies for a stand-alone article. Uh, WP:GNG? Following WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, this essay should have no impact in consensus decisions whatsoever. Therefore, people will need to prove that it meets WP:GNG in tandem with this essay, which makes it useless. Ca talk to me! 10:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not a contradiction of the guidelines. It is an interpretation of the guidelines, a very different thing. It states the opinion that those listings constitute independent, reliable, in-depth coverage. You may well disagree with that opinion, but your disagreement does not make it a contradiction, a violation, or a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I wanted to post here earlier along similar lines as David. I couldn't think of the correct way to put it. But, yes, this an interpretation, and not a contradiction of the notability guidelines. The highly selective listings equate to independent, reliable, in-depth coverage. These listings are not affiliated with academic journal publishers. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * An essay in the Wikipedia namespace belongs to everyone and can be edited by everyone. The idea of "hijacking" it makes no sense. There is even an actual policy about it: Essays the author does not want others to edit, or that contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. Since you clearly don't want other people to edit this essay, and it does contradict widespread consensus, maybe moving it to userspace would be a solution? Tercer (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This essay does not contradict widespread consensus anymore than any other essay in Wikipedia space. Again, if you disagree with it, write your own essay. This has been used by literally hundreds of people in hundreds of deletion debates. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading through discussions again, I feel we are debating whether journal database listings give significant coverage. It may be better to hold a RfC on that topic. Ca talk to me! 23:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it certainly has been a waste of time trying to explain this essay. I won't waste any more of my time doing this.---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be better to allow AfD participants to hold opinions on what they think significant coverage is, in general, rather than holding an RfC to demand that the world form a consensus around only your opinions on the matter and forbid all others. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)