User talk:Artmarichka: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:53, 5 August 2016

Welcome!

Hello, Artmarichka, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Modern phytomorphology, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Modern phytomorphology

The article Modern phytomorphology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,User:Randykitty! I impoved a page of Modern Phytomorphology and added links and list of the most important databases where this journal is indexed or abstracted. As you can see, it is really not indexed in such commercial giants as Thomson Reuters Master List or Scopus, however it is already indexed in many other independent databases. In particular, in Index Copernicus this journal is rating on the more or less the same level as Romanian journal Contributii Botanice ^[1], Polish Acta Biologica Cracoviensia seria Botanica ^[2], Actae Palaeobotanica ^[3], Fragmenta Floristica and Geobotanica Polonica ^[4], or the central Ukrainian botanical journal - Ukrainian Botanical Journal ^[5]. So, I believe that Modern Phytomorphology is not less important and is, maybe not so far as commercial giants, but notable. If you agree with me, please remove the proposal for deletion. Artmarichka (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that inclusion in Index Copernicus is more a negative thing than a positive one... None of the databases that you have added to the article are selective in the sense of our inclusion criteria. Like any editor, you may remove the PROD template. In that case, however, I'll open a deletion discussion and if an article is deleted after such a discussion, re-creation is more complicated if the journal meets the inclusion criteria at some point in the future. So unless you have evidence that the journal meets WP:NJournals (or WP:GNG), it would be better if you let the deletion proceed. --Randykitty (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very strange position about Index Copernicus. Would you please provide any reasonable background for such you considerations? Do you know that Index Copernicus is the main Polish indexation system which now cooperate with Polish goverment and they integrate their Master List with Polish govermental evaluation of scientific sources. So, all scientists in Poland now are evaluated on the base of data provided by Index Copernicus (but not only, of course). Secondly, what you have against CAB, DOAJ or China govermental database CNKI? Can you please provide more arguments?

Speedy deletion nomination of Modern phytomorphology

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Modern phytomorphology requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://journals.indexcopernicus.com/Suchasna+Fitomorfologia,p12524,3.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick (Talk) 12:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://contributii_botanice.reviste.ubbcluj.ro/

[2] ttp://www.degruyter.com/view/j/abcsb

[3] ttp://www.degruyter.com/view/j/acpa

[4] ttp://botany.pl/ibwyd/fragm/fragm.htm

[5] ttp://ukrbotj.co.ua/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 [[User:Artmarichka|Artmarichka]] ([[User talk:Artmarichka#top|talk]]) 23:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 *I'm afraid that inclusion in Index Copernicus is more a negative thing than a positive one... None of the databases that you have added to the article are ''selective'' in the sense of [[WP:NJournals|our inclusion criteria]]. Like any editor, you may remove the PROD template. In that case, however, I'll open a [[WP:AFD|deletion discussion]] and if an article is deleted after such a discussion, re-creation is more complicated if the journal meets the inclusion criteria at some point in the future. So unless you have evidence that the journal meets [[WP:NJournals]] (or [[WP:GNG]]), it would be better if you let the deletion proceed. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 23:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
+*Very strange position about Index Copernicus. Would you please provide any reasonable background for such you considerations? Do you know that Index Copernicus is the main Polish indexation system which now cooperate with Polish goverment and they integrate their Master List with Polish govermental evaluation of scientific sources. So, all scientists in Poland now are evaluated on the base of data provided by Index Copernicus (but not only, of course). Secondly, what you have against CAB, DOAJ or China govermental database CNKI? Can you please provide more arguments?
 ==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Modern phytomorphology]]==