The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: speedy keep. Quoting the top of WP:MFD: "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early". If you wish to prevent this page from being used, seek consensus to have it tagged with ((historical)). Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Masquerading as WP:PAG and being used inappropriately in WP:AfDs led by User:Randykitty. I would suggest marking this travesty of inappropriate opinion as rejected proposal, but seeing as how it is being used as actual policy in deletion discussions I'm afraid this will not dissuade its adherents from using it. Delete the thing and put it out of its misery. Use WP:GNG instead. jps (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP. I read it through and it is a mix of what is said better elsewhere seasoned with the obvious application to journals and, sadly, a fair bit of thoughtlessness (now being doggedly defended elsewhere). Is it worth fixing so that the applicability to journals actually has some value? Frankly, knocking it into shape and then maintaining it on top of everything else would be a worse pain than living without it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete holy cow i had not read this guidelineessay before. The purpose of guidelines is to clarify some aspect of a policy or to apply policy in some way that the community determined was helpful. This doesn't complement or apply the WP:N policy, it ignores it and puts its own N criteria in place. Yes, this needs TNT because it violates the WP:PAG policy as well as WP:N. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC) (fixed, thanks for the note Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
It's not a guideline; it's an essay. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what Jytdog said, this is horrible. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator made some changes to the essay; these were reverted on the basis that consensus was required - a discussion is now taking place on the talk page. The thing is, this was only a few hours ago; the nomination appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to the disagreement. There needs to be a much stronger basis for deleting an essay; the fact that is often appealed to is neither here or there. StAnselm (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This looks like a bad-faith AfD to me. This essay has been around since 2009 and it has never been nom'd until some editor became upset with presumed notability and now wants to destroy this so they can get their way in other AfDs. Editors like me agree with this essay and if they don't like seeing me cite it they can pound sand. It's an essay! Chris Troutman (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This could be userfied to User:Guillaume2303/Notability (academic journals), along with a removal of the ((notability guide)) template, without prejudice to this essay being proposed as a guideline if someone desires to do so. Due to the similarity of this to a notability guideline (e.g. title, wording, format, etc.), I think it may be good to make it clearer that this is just an essay. I was going to !vote to that effect, but after digesting part of the discussion on its talk page, considering how long its been around, and reading views presented by others here, I'm not prepared to do so at this time. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of the many problems with this nomination is that there are lots of similar pages in Category:Wikipedia essays on notability. The same template is included, for example, on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The template links to the page via the "see also/Wikipedia essays/by subject" link. StAnselm (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've mad a few adjustments to the page that I feel remedies the most problematic aspects.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. The problem that triggered this is that in article space there is an attempt to use this opinion essay to influence, even stand in for, policy. This MfD is an attempt to terminate such unsound influencing, not to initiate it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an old multi-authored project related essay, some pretty compelling conflict with policy would have to be demonstrated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is a guideline, not policy either. MfD perhaps? --Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot to quibble over in that essay, but deletion is not the answer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As long as people such as WP:Randy in Boise are going to use it as an argument in AfDs, I think we need to relegate it to a space where it is not being mistaken for guidelines/policy. I would say just slap the Template:Rejected-proposal tag on it, but as it is being used in an inordinate number of AfDs, I think it has to go. Userifying would be fine with me. jps (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a go at rewriting it. You are largely right, it is bad, it is not written as an ((essay)), but as a proposal, and as such it should be tagged ((proposal)) and soon converted to ((guideline)) or ((failed)). As an essay, it must not assert disputed policy/guideline style statement, it must not assert consensus if disputed. Essays are for presenting opinion, experience, arguments, etc, not for stating consensus. I think am sure it must be a keep, but it either needs a complete rewrite in style, different taggery, ((proposal)), ((guideline)) or ((failed)). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see User:Randykitty reverts to maintain wording inappropriate for an essay, and misconstruing of the meaning of the GNG. I am beginning to see the problem. The answer is not to "delete", but to tag ((failed)). This is usually done via WP:RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, until this MfD is settled, I think it is best not to change the essay. Any changes needed can be made later, if this is kept, after appropriate discussion on the talk page. The essay most certainly is not written in stone and most editors here are open for reasonable arguments. But at this point, things are a bit heated, so I think it's best to let things cool down a bit. The MfD notice on top of the page should at this point be warning enough to any innocent editor happening to stumble upon it that there is some serious discussion going on and that this essay is not uncontroversial. --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment. On my first reading, I couldn't not correct things that were reading to me so blatantly wrong. I mentioned something here about essays being fixable, and thought it important to demonstrate an example of the sort of fixing I think it needs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" is the kneejerk reaction of MfD to the nomination to delete. Failed proposals are not deleted. Looking back, at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals)/Archive_1#Promotion_to_guideline_status, this proposal failed to gain to consensus. The closer, User:SilkTork made a definite error in deciding that no consensus to promote to guideline, but large support, meant it should be retagged ((essay)). As a proposal, it sought to describe consensus. It didn't. As an essay, it then falsely asserted claims of consensus. It does today, falsely assert claims of consensus. Essays are not allowed to do that. Failed proposals become big problems if retagged as essays. This is a big problem. Essays may only assert their author's opinion. This, Wikipedia:Scholarly journal, is a proper essay. This page should be:
if proponents want to fix it and resubmit to RfC, retagged ((proposal)).
It should not be allowed to continue as an {tl|essay)), even in userspace. If arguments, instead of assertions of consensus, are to be asserted, write a fresh essay. Proposals and essays are different beasts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WTF, and snow keep I can't even fathom why this is even brought for deletion. Snow keep.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete/userfy. Although only an essay, it is being often invoked and misinterpreted as policy or a guideline by editors, when a topic up for discussion otherwise fails GNG. I.e. it is being used to circumvent our notability standards, by editors who think it has a similar standing to them, being presented and written like a guideline not a personal opinion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a widely consulted essay. The notion that we should not have an essay on the notability of academic journals is a non-starter. Users who disagree with aspects of what is written should consider the usual Wikipedia method of working to improve the wording rather than proposing to blow up the whole thing. SilkTork✔Tea time 14:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A poor essay which works against the foundational principles of Wikipedia by attempting to push otherwise marginally-known journals over the threshold of notability. WP:NOTEVERYTHING (real policy) is pertinent. 18:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs)
Speedy keep. There is longstanding community consensus that WP:NJOURNALS should inform deletion discussions about academic journals. Furthermore, per WP:MFD and WP:DEL, there is no valid, policy-based rationale for deleting this essay. Per WP:MFD, "[e]stablished pages" like this should not be deleted. Even if we consider this a failed proposal, it should be "retain[ed] it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors". None of the reasons listed at WP:DEL-REASON apply here. I recommend we close this discussion and discuss potential modifications/improvements to WP:NJOURNALS on its talk page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An essay offering some guidance on journal notability is helpful. Many opposes seem to take issue with whether the listed criteria are appropriate markers of notability. Seems that's a discussion better suited for the talk page of this essay. As for people citing this as a guideline, I think the rewording by Godsy will help vastly with that. If others make the same mistake, a gentle reminder that it is, in fact, an essay should suffice. Ajpolino (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frequently used as an essay to support deletion discussions. WP:ITSUSEFUL is a bad reason to keep Wikipedia articles, but I think it's a fine reason to keep an essay. Conversely, much of the opposition to it above appears to be disagreement with its content, a very bad reason for deleting an essay (we shouldn't censor other editors' opinions); indeed, editorial positions on which we disagree are the very reason we have Wikipedia essays (otherwise they would be guidelines). And deleting it would make it harder to understand past AfDs, something that is frequently necessary when the same topic comes around for another round of AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and Notecardforfree, who said it more eloquently than I would have. This essay has informed journal discussions and this wikiproject for at least the 4 years I have been an editor. --Mark viking (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I am just stunned to see the !keep votes here from very experienced users, supporting an essay that violates policy and is used on a regular basis to over-rule efforts to apply policy. This is deeply screwed up. I do not write that lightly. Folks should really consider how PAG actually work across WP and the precedent that you all are setting, and if the desire is to actually change the Notability policy, then you need to actually change the notability policy. Really though, this essay and the way it is used is corrosive to the fundamental processes that govern this entire project. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain how this essay violates policy? That's a pretty extraordinary claim, so I expect some extraordinary evidence to be presented in support of it. Everymorning(talk) 21:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have started a discussion on the discussion about the impact factor at the essay's talk page. It might be worth clarifying that before taking this MfD too far. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay masquerading as a policy or guideline. Yes, I know that the essay states that it's an essay, but it has a structure and prescriptive language that are essentially identical to a policy or guideline, and has been invoked as a criterion in delete/keep discussions as pointed out above. If this essay is kept it needs to say in great big bold letters This essay has no standing as Wikipedia policy, and carries no policy-based weight in deletion discussions.Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it does contain the essay template at the top, which says, "This essay contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the topic of notability. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." Is that good enough, Boris? Everymorning(talk) 22:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not, because we see numerous remarks above that the essay "has been used for years now as a guide in determining notability" and the like. It might be OK to keep this essay as long as it includes an explicit disclaimer within the body of the essay that it carries no weight in policy. I've added such language to the essay itself. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Every subject-specific notability guideline needs to have undergone a site-wide RFC to validate it, otherwise it is really easy to create small fife-doms of information on WP. I don't see evidence this has gone through such a vetting process. For that reason, while I would think this notability guideline is completely faulty and fails to understand the goal of subject-specific guidelines (to show metrics where there are likely to be good coverage in secondary sources), I think it is reasonable that if no RFC has been run to vet this, that one should be allowed. That said, one can also take this MFD as that RFC, and in that case, I do not support this guideline (there's no evidence that this leads to secondary source coverage), and would support deletion under this MFD if we're going that direction. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's broken, then it needs to be fixed. But deletion won't fix it, and we still need it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with SilkTork, WP needs an essay on the notability of academic journals, and this one is both widely-consulted and widely-used, and has been for many years. Even if a proper community discussion were to conclude that its content is seriously flawed, given the number of times it has been used, the proper approach would be to mark it as failed and retain it for historical reasons. I see no reasons justified in policy for deleting an essay with this length of history and, as Notecardforfree notes, the MfD instructions themselves support this reasoning for retaining it – just look at the considerable number of incoming links! I get that jps is frustrated and has lost his temper and made some offensive remarks, but that doesn't give his argument any more force. The proper resolution here is to discuss changes to the essay at its talk page. There are a lot of reasonable people who edit the journals area, I doubt most of us are in favour of pseudoscientific drivel being included in Wikipedia, so lets AGF that we can have an adult discussion and come to a reasonable consensus. My first thought is that the IF = notable be changed to say that having an IF gives a rebuttable presumption of notability, and with the Explore journal I have the impression that that presumption can be rebutted. EdChem (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. It has been repeatedly used in AfD discussions, and deleting it would be seriously harmful for understanding previous discussions. It is indeed needed as a historical record. Just throw a ((failed)) tag out there, and carry on by rewriting the essay if needed. Established pages should not be nominated per WP:MFD. Ceosad (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD discussions frequently point to various essays, and this is hardly the kind of one-editor personal work that would confuse AfD discussions. It is clearly identified as an essay in a big banner right at the top, so I fail to see how it "masquerades" as anything else. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 23:29, 11 December 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
((historical)) would be inappropriate because it never did represent consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]