User talk:Randykitty
 | Because of personal circumstances, I will be much less online than usual. If you need an admin, please go to WP:AN. If you came here because I speedily deleted an article, please see WP:REFUND first. Thanks. |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, please add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab, or, depending on your settings, the "new section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. I dislike talk-back templates and fragmented discussions. If I post on your page you may assume that I will watch it for a response. If you post here I will assume the same (and that you lost interest if you stop following the discussion).
Dear Randykitty,
You flagged this article doubting its notability. Now academic journals don't normally get reviewed themselves, however this Africa journal is referenced in some 50 older extant en.wikipedia articles, and in university/institute library catalogues all over the world.
- Would that suffice to prove its notability?
Thank you, cheers, Hansmuller (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for reaching out. Unfortunately, no, being cited in WP articles does not contribute to notability. WP in fact, cannot be used as a source, as it is user-contributed... Neither do (notoriously unreliable) library records. Yes, reviews of journals, even while not unheard off, are rare. That's why we created WP:NJournals, o make it easier for journals to pass the bar. The easiest way to do this ("easiest' relatively speaking) is by being included in a selective database. That there are some citations to a journal that has been around for 70-something years is to be expected and nothing out of the ordinary. I could propose this for deletion (see WP:PROD and WP:AfD), but given those 70+ years I am hoping that someone can come up with at least one acceptable source, hence the tag to alert readers/editors that independent sources are needed. --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for answering. Well, we have JSTOR, a selective database, which includes this Africanist journal. Would JSTOR do? Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- JSTOR has never been accepted as a selective database in the sense of NJournals. However, I'm pinging DGG (a specialist university librarian) to see whether he thinks this is still the case. --Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- JSTOR is a good service, but it's an access platform (similar to Science Direct and Wiley Online Library), not an indexing service. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- JSTOR has never been accepted as a selective database in the sense of NJournals. However, I'm pinging DGG (a specialist university librarian) to see whether he thinks this is still the case. --Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| Greatest Administrator Wikipedian Editor nice keep it up and welldone my best firend Mrs Farhan RR (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC) |