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. Consensus to not delete, but no consensus whether to keep or to merge to Society for Ecological Restoration. This can be discussed further on the talk page. Sandstein 13:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". DePRODded by article creator with reason "Notability is clear. NPS is a legitimate and well-regarded journal in its field". No support for this assertion is offered. PROD reason therefore still stand, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this journal is avaliable on JSTOR, so the claim of it not being indexed by a selective database is incorrect. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JSTOR and Project MUSE are access platforms. Neither is considered a selective indexing service in the sense of WP:NJournals. Any government publication, by the way, can be included in selective indexing services (some, like MEDLINE are even government operated). --Randykitty (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Native Plants Journal is a highly referenced publication in plant biology, especially botany and horticulture. It is used across a wide array of sources and is a production of the USDA Forestry Service in collaboration with a few universities. Is it even allowed to be included in whatever selective databases you're speaking of (which ones?) when it is a government research production? As for the lack of independent sources claim, i've clearly already refuted that and i'm still working on it. SilverserenC 20:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The journal is a widely read publication and actively held in major libraries. The sourcing demonstrates its notability. Thriley (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither of the foregoing two "keep" !votes are convincing. A few press releases are not the in-depth coverage required for GNG. The !vote just above boils down to WP:ITSNOTABLE. If this journal indeed has such an impact, then where are the sources that would go with such impact? --Randykitty (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A few press releases" ? I don't think there's any press releases in the article. Coverage in conferences and national society meetings aren't press releases. SilverserenC 22:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such announcements are absolutely routine coverage and nothing coming even close to satisfying GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is referenced in most of the "Find sources" links above, so clearly is notable. Hardyplants (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And which of those "references" constitute the in-depth coverage required by GNG? --Randykitty (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Just the first three pages of listings at Google Scholar show more than 1100 citations, and that's a tiny fraction of the published articles. This is easily enough to meet "Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area" and "Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources." Zerotalk 14:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be TOOSOON to judge a journal that is 20 years old? Also, it is obvious that having thousands of citations in other reliable sources is relevant to notability. Zerotalk 04:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Silver seren said all that needs to be said about this. DreamFocus 09:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please enlighten me: exactly which sources make this pass GNG? Thanks! No clue what "not paper" has to do here and if you want to "preserve" the info on this as yet non-notable journal, then follow Headbomb's suggestion to merge this to the society. --Randykitty (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is an essential and standard reference in the field. Read the article and its references. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fails verification. The source (which you added after I posed the above question) does not say anything like that, it just lists it as "reference". That's a far cry from the in-depth coverage required by GNG. Try reading it. Cheers. --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you overlooked this. Which dovetails nicely into WP:Before. So your criticism about the timing is misplaced, IMO. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you overlooked my preceding comment. Which dovetails nicely into WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Happy editing. --Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMerge I think, Randykitty, you are overly relying on the "indexed in selective databases" criterion here. That's one option for meeting journal notability, but not the only one. Reasonably long tenure, heavy citation, and big author names also figure into it, and this has all three. Personally I remember citing the heck out of this when working on New Zealand native bush ecosystems back in the day - which may not count for much, but certainly makes me want to see a clear case of failing all three WP:JOURNALCRIT criteria before considering it non-notable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I (obviously) disagree. "Long tenure" is not a reason for notability. "Heavy citation" is relative, the figures mentioned above would be borderline for a single researcher, let alone for a whole journal. And "big names" falls afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED, of course. If this journal indeed is so significant, then why was it not picked up by selective databases. In fact, it is not even included in non-selective ones. We have absolutely nothing here, no in-depth sources (fails GNG), zero indexing (fails NJournals), modest citation counts (fails NJournals), nothing indicating any historical significance (another fail of NJournals). --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, reasonable cites. While not in the selective DBs, there is indexing - see list here. On reflection I'm probably biased in favour of the journal because I've cited it so much at one stage. Merging to the society might be the cleaner option. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks for that link, I've struck that remark (got mixed up with something else). --Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks like a solid publication. More useful information about this journal can be found at its Wikidata entry's Identifiers. Cordially, History DMZ(HQ) † (wire) 06:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since when is being "solid" enough to be notable? If that's the case, I know a couple of million scientists that all should get a bio here. And which of the Wikidata identifiers are proof of any notability? This !vote just is another instance of WP:ILIKEIT. --Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saddened that you would dismiss my legitimate vote as you did. Shoud we dismiss all the votes that simply state "per nom", "per above" or "per user x" too? No, I don't think so. And the Identifiers I mentioned show that this journal is recognized by important journal databases such as JSTOR. G'Day, History DMZ(HQ) † (wire) 00:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I already explained, JSTOR is an access platform. It is not a selective database in the sense of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any notable university working with government agency such as the USDA Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the USDA Agricultural Research Service, is a notable publication. Just as we list all newspapers even if they aren't referenced by other newspapers, we list legitimate scientific publications as well. Wikipedia isn't just pop culture and politics, we have educational material also. DreamFocus 15:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just as we list all newspapers even if they aren't referenced by other newspapers: to be fair, we don't - there's specific criteria for those just like for all other types of publications.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
we list legitimate scientific publications: In the present case it may be clear that this is a legitimate publication, but often that is less clear. So are we going to decide which journals should be included and which not based upon the personal opinions of WP editors? Just as we have criteria for newspapers, so do we have criteria for academic journals. Arguing that this one is notable because it is published by a notable university and government agency flies in the face of WP:NOTINHERITED. --Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If notable universities and government agencies determine it is a legitimate scientific journal, then it is. Most people in this discussion seem to agree with this. I have no idea why you believe "not inherited" applies here. DreamFocus 15:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is incorrct to say that notable universities and government agencies have "determined" that this is notable, the university and agency publish is and you are arguing that the journal inherits its notability from its publishers. --Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These notable scientific agencies work together to publish a scientific journal. Its notable because the people in charge of researching and knowing things about it, are the ones creating it. DreamFocus 16:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you're still arguing that because the publishers are notable, the journal must be notable. On my user page i have some examples of journals that were started by notable publishers and never became notable. I really don't want to do away with the principle that at least part of our articles should be based on independent RS. Without in-depth coverage or selective databases, we can't do that. --Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Society for Ecological Restoration. There doesn't appear to be much more to say about this journal than the article currently does. Not everything works as a stand-alone page; in this case, one short-ish article would be preferable over two very short ones. XOR'easter (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of like an reversed WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS] argument: because those notable journals don't have an article, we should keep an article on this non-notable one. I'll take an hour later today to create sourced articles on those journals. --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A partner journal isn't the same as being run by that group. Many of journals partner together, but are still unique entities. SilverserenC 23:11, 20 February 2021 (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.