Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubrovnik Annals

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep without prejudice against a potential merger. Editor generally agree that WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL are governing guidelines in this discussion, but clearly disagree how those two guidelines should apply to this article. Deryck C. 21:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubrovnik Annals[edit]

Dubrovnik Annals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, only independent sources are brief in-passing mentions in local newspapers. Google Scholar indicates just a hand full of citations to articles published in this journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As creator of the article, I believe that the mentions in the local newspapers are sufficient independent sources. Moreover, the Dubrovnik Annals are used as a source in Wikipedia about 20 times. I think an article of the journal is needed to let the reader know WP's sources. Moreover, there are multiple mentions at Google Books. However, if my arguments aren't sufficient to keep it as a stand-alone-article, my second choice would be a 'merge and redirect' to Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether the local in-passing mentions are enough to satisfy GNG is a matter of judgment. That a publication is cited in WP is not an argument: all a non-notable journal would then have to do to become notable is add references to some articles and presto! they're notable. As I said in the now, there is a smattering of citations to articles in this journal (most articles never having been cited, a few others with 1 citation, haven't seen any with more) and these pop up in GBooks. These are just cites of articles, none are in-depth discussion of the journal itself. The number of cites is way below what we would usually take to indicate notability for a single researcher, let alone for a whole journal (especially one that has been around for quite a while). --Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi Randy, three points:
1. You are right on the ‘putting references first, thus making the journal notable of a stand-alone-article’-theory. I’ve seen that happen on WP too. However, that case here. I discovered the journal while being busy with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dživo Frana Sorkočević, and then thought an article was useful.
2. I’ve made a paragraph on the indexing of this journal. I hope it will increase the notability a bit.
3. And if the article stays or not: thanks for improving it anyway! Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Long-established scholarly Croatian Journal. Not many cites expected as field is recondite. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • So how does that meet any of our inclusion guidelines? --Randykitty (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Passes WP:NJournals#C3. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Any sources that support the claim that this journal has a "historic purpose or a significant history"? --Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder to participants in this debate: notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources (as are claims of an "historic purpose or a significant history" - such as "published Einstein's most famous paper"). In-passing mentions in (local) newspapers do not constitute such significant overage. --Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we have established that this article has met any of WP:NJournals's criteria for notability, and I certainly haven't found any evidence that the journal has a "historic purpose or a significant history." Nor do the trivial mentions in newspapers confer notability (see WP:TRIVIALMENTION). Therefore, I am in favor deleting this, unless someone can cite specific evidence of significant coverage in a reliable secondary source (it need not be in English). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on what I have found, I'm leaning Delete here - I'm not seeing anything that passes WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for now I'm leaning towards a merge to Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, but a case could be made that this is a historically significant journal per WP:NJOURNALS#C3. But until that case is made, a merge seems appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mentions in independent local newspapers do not give enough coverage to the topic so that it is the subject of significant coverage, which is required by both WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. As for WP:NJournals#C3 historic purpose or a significant history, no one in this discussion has explained any historic purpose/significant history, let alone show that such purpose or coverage has been written about so as to be able to include it in Wikipedia. While Economy of Ragusa, 1300-1800: the Tiger of Medieval Mediterranean cites to five separate articles in Dubrovnik Annals, those add to the notability of the articles themselves, not Dubrovnik Annals, since notability is not inherited. Merge Dubrovnik Annals to Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts is inappropriate. Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts has been around since 1866 and there is no source to even suggest that the academy's publishing Dubrovnik Annals since 1997 would be even a Wikipedia article mentionable part of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts' 150 year history or its purpose. Delete. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Searches in English for non-English topics generally do not. Aeonx (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for the journal's title, which is indeed in English, should also turn up sources that are not in English, too. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last time I checked, number of GHits does not translate to notability, unless some of those links provide independent in-depth coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dubrovnik_Annals&oldid=1077970233"