Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient TL

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete‎. This AfD has been running for 19 days, with nothing in the way of new arguments, or even new participants, since I relisted it for the second time. So rather than keep it open and waste more of editors' time, I'm closing it now, as the result is unlikely to change with yet another relist.

As I mentioned in my last relisting note, the WP:NJOURNALS essay has never attained guideline status, as its criteria are seen to be too permissive, although it is considered by many to be our current best practices guidance. It is generally agreed that failure to meet either NJOURNALS or GNG is sufficient grounds for deletion.

As some here noted, citations are the currency in academia. And indeed, we use this metric to determine the notability of researchers. We do not, however, use citations of a paper to establish the notability of the journal in which it was published. NJOURNALS Criterion #2 refers to citing the journal, not the journal appearing as part of a citation for a paper published there.

Some here lamented the fact that journals in niche fields are unlikely to meet our notability guidelines. That is intentional, not an oversight. The vast majority of scientific journals are not, as a topic, encyclopedic, even if they are the leading publication in their field.

As for indexing, while its importance is diminished in the era of Google Scholar and ResearchGate, it still serves as prima facie evidence of acceptance by mainstream academia. And while the absence of indexing is not by itself sufficient reason to delete an article about a journal, when combined with the paucity of sources covering the journal (as opposed to merely referencing papers in it), this suggests the journal fails to meet our notability criteria, as skillfully argued by the Delete side here.

In summary, even if we accept NJOURNALS as best practices guidance, consensus among policy and guidelines-based views here is to delete the article. Owen× ☎ 09:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient TL

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ancient TL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "Remove deletion tag, I explain the reasoning a separate message. It does not mean that the article cannot be improved". PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am a little bit lost here, what does PROD reason means? Why citations do not count or is there something I overlooked? Sorry, I just try to provide sufficient evidence to retain the journal, but I need to know what is actually required. Besides, I suggest putting this at least on hold because the journal has currently got a new editor (this is not me) and will move to a new publication platform (https://www.soap2.ch/) with all the old articles properly tagged with DOI. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid the deletion of the entry for Ancient TL (ATL) from Wikipedia.com, I am providing evidence of the journal's relevance. First, a little bit of background: Ancient TL is the open-source and free-of-charge luminescence and electron-spin resonance dating community journal. The journal is run by volunteers from the academic community. The few articles published yearly are mainly of technical (such as conversion factors) nature of relevance to the experts in the field. Beyond, the journal publishes abstracts about completed theses in the field (source: http://ancienttl.org). The publications have no DOI (yet), and the journal needs to be indexed, which is related to the low number of publications yearly. Given the following evidence, The journal is of utmost relevance to the scientific community.
@RandyKitty if this is not enough evidence, I may ask to provide actual arguments why the given evidence is not sufficient. Thank you! GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did a Google scholar search on "Ancient TL" and it shows quite a few papers with > 50 citations, some more than 100. I think this is enough to demonstrate that it is not fluff. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: nobody says that this is "fluff", but that is not enough to make a journal notable in the WP sense. That articles from the journal have racked up some citations is nothing out of the ordinary and certainly not enough to pass NJournals (and GNG even less). --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randykitty I understand and see your point, but citations are the currency in academia. Why should authors, alleged experts in their field, cite a journal in peer-reviewed papers (and reviewers and editors agree) in journals such as Nature (communications) or Science regularly if what is published in this journal has no significance to the field? At least the high-impact journals are somewhat sensitive to non-essential references and frequently request their removal during the review process. Where do you draw the line then? Or differently formulated: What do you accept as evidence of the significance of a journal? The numbers I quoted are high in our field, but of course, compared to author disciplines such as medicine or chemistry, they are of little relevance. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that this is the threshold for notability: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
    I'm not sure how one would demonstrate this for every article published in the journal, but perhaps some examples help. Take the following article: "Huntley, D.J., Baril, M.R., 1997. The K content of the K-feldspars being measured in optical dating or in thermoluminescence dating. Ancient TL, v.15, n.1, 1997." Google Scholar registers 716 citations of this article. Looking at the first page of results, citing articles come from reputable sources (Quaternary Geochronology, Quaternary Science Reviews, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Boreas, Science, Radiation Measurements, Science, Nature) and citing articles are themselves highly cited (cited by 662, 25, 63, 1189, 762, 546, 843, 169, 54, 683). Another example: "Kreutzer, S., et al., 2012. Introducing an R package for luminescence dating analysis. Ancient TL, v.30, n.1, 2012" This registers 345 citations. The first page of results show citing articles that are published in Nature Reviews, Science, Ancient TL, Science, Nature, Science Nature Ecology & Evolution, Nature, Quaternary Geochronology, and Quaternary Science Reviews. These citing articles are cited 169, 142, 158, 169, 341, 22, 26, 4 (published this year), 116, and 25 times.
    These articles are receiving significant coverage (highly cited), in reliable sources (Science, Nature, Quaternary Geochronology, Nature Reviews, and so on), that are independent of the source (with one exception, these citations are coming from other journals). One could replicate this analysis on many highly cited articles published in Ancient TL.
    Perhaps some users may interpret this threshold differently, but I argue that one could reasonable argue that Ancient TL meets this definition. TroutbeckRise (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe this discussion is taking place at all. You want to remove a post about a journal created by some of the best researchers in the world, whose work on the development of luminescent methods has a great impact on many areas of our lives? The methods described in the journal are used in archaeology, geology, conservation, mining, palaeontology, biology, etc. Since when has it been most important whether a journal is cited? The most important thing is that it is read, and the methods described therein are used on a daily basis in hundreds of laboratories around the world and in the process of building new and ever more perfect equipment. Furthermore, you want to remove a respected journal without understanding the impact it has on science, and you easily allow sites promoting the idea of a flat earth to exist!!! You probably need to read the definition of the word ‘encyclopaedia’ because I have the impression that you lack basic knowledge in this area.
    Artur Ginter, head of Laboratory of Luminescence Dating and Conservation of Artifacts, University of Lodz, Poland 91.228.32.177 (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote this without been logged in. ArturGinter (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that you're new here, so I recommend that you read some of the policies and guidelines that I have linked to with a "welcome" template on your talk page. I may not know the meaning of the work "encyclopaedia", but you clearly don't know how things work here. One important piece to read, BTW, is WP:AGF, thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reply in no way refers to my post. I've been using Wikipedia since 2002 so certainly longer than you've had an account here, but I don't know what relevance that has. Content from the Ancient TL can only be cited by a small group of scientists in the world (because the rest don't understand much of it) so it's not surprising that statistically there is less of it than comments on flat earth and chemitrails. In the following article from Nature, Ancient TL is quoted 6 or 7 times. ‘The age of the hominin fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and the origins of the Middle Stone Age’ Daniel Richter, Rainer Grün, Renaud Joannes-Boyau, Teresa E. Steele, Fethi Amani, Mathieu Rué, Paul Fernandes, Jean-Paul Raynal, Denis Geraads, Abdelouahed Ben-Ncer, Jean-Jacques Hublin & Shannon P. McPherron. In Nature ... which is the most important journal in the world, where only the best go, and usually once in a lifetime. How many times have your articles been cited in Nature or Science? ArturGinter (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you may have been reading WP for a long time, your ignorance of policies and guidelines here is evident. And how long I've been here or how many times I've been cited by Nature is irrelevant (and as a matter of principle I don't reveal any personal info, so I'm not confirming nor denying ever having been cited by that or any other journal). Comment on the issues, not the editor. In any case, your description of the journal being noticed by only a small group of people is basically an argument against it being notable in the WP sense. --Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "your description of the journal being noticed by only a small group of people is basically an argument against it" - I did't wrote that. The journal is not noticed by small group of people but a small group of people can cite it in their articles.
    However, referring to the substance, I suggest tracing the pillars of Wikipedia:
    Wikipedia is not a dictionary - the entry is not a dictionary entry
    Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - the Ancient TL is a peer-reviewed journal and not the result of private research or ideas
    Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion - none of the subsections of this pillar apply to the Ancient TL
    Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files - the entry on Ancient TL contains none of the above
    Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site - the entry on Ancient TL does not include any of these
    Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal - the entry on Ancient TL contains only an abridged description of the journal and therefore does not fulfil the criteria above
    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - not applicable at all
    Wikipedia is not a newspaper - also not applicable
    Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - also not applicable
    Wikipedia is not censored - ‘Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted). However, because most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers, for a time, before being detected and removed. ' - Ancient TL does not violate any of these rules.
    If the entry on Ancient TL does not violate any Wikipedia rules on what basis should the page be removed? ArturGinter (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi ArturGinter, the relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is what the WP:NOTABILITY guideline is based on. I know that Wikipedia's notability criteria can feel very arbitrary, so I want to acknowledge how frustrating that can be for a new Wikipedia editor. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I didnt understand you well. Could do wrtite me exactly which subsection of the WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:NOTABILITY entry about Ancient TL does not meet? ArturGinter (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the contention of many in this discussion (including the original nominator but also several of the Keep voters) is that Ancient TL fails the "General notability guideline" (WP:GNG), which is the most important subsection of the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. In other words, the contention is that Ancient TL has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Ancient TL. You may also find the section of WP:NOTABILITY on why the notability guideline exists to be useful context. Suriname0 (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nature Journal is not a reliable source? What about Springer? ScienceDirect? Ancient TL is cited in thousands articles from all over the world. Its not enought for wikipedia? Could you please write me how many reliable sources have been found to confirm the flatness of the earth or chemitrails? Because there are some pages on wiki about it. 5.173.210.79 (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a faculty researcher within the field of luminescence dating, I confirm that this journal is notable within our community. If the benchmark for notability is that a journal is known for publishing scholarly research in the spirit of GNG, Ancient TL plainly fits that definition. As detailed in a previous reply, a significant majority of all peer-reviewed journal articles which employ luminescence dating rely upon and cite work that was published in Ancient TL. Ancient TL also has historical importance for our field in that it, along with Radiation Protection and Dosimetry, was one of the first publications dedicated to this subfield. The scope of this journal is more restricted than most (usually involving technological advances germane to dating specialists) but the review process and editorial oversight are robust, and many individual articles are foundational to our field and highly cited. Finally, it should be re-emphasized that this journal is not predatory by any metric, but is a publication run by the scientific community which it serves. It is run on a volunteer basis and is diamond open access: it charges no fees to authors or readers. TroutbeckRise (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)— TroutbeckRise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: I appreciate your dedication to this journal. However, one requirement of WP is that statements need to be supported by independent reliable sources. Statements from WP editors unfortunately don't count as such. Unless you can come up with such sources (again, independent of the subject), your !vote will likely be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that none of those articles is about the journal. If this journal is so crucial to its field, how come there are no sources about that? Why is the journal not indexed in Scopus or the Science Citation Index or, indeed, any other index (not even less selective ones)? I understand that you'd like your journal to have an article here, but so far you have not provided any hard evidence. If even you editors yourselves can't find such evidence, it likely doesn't exist. --Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But perhaps the interpretation that inclusion within journal indices is the only viable metric of reputability is a narrow interpretation and one that is not codified into WP guidelines? Citation counts and the reputability of journals which cite Ancient TL articles are both independent of the source. Is there consensus that these metric do not count? If so, is this codified somewhere? I apologize for my ignorance here, but it strikes me that this singular reliance upon whether a journal is indexed is overly restrictive. TroutbeckRise (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps @GeoGammaMorphologe and I are demonstrating Criterion 2.b of the WP:Notability criteria: the journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources AND "the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journals are via bibliographic databases and citation indices, such as...Google Scholar." TroutbeckRise (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A little context might be useful here. The notability criterion used for academic journals are controversial e.g. see this discussion, or the tens of thousands of words spilled on the talk page of NJOURNALS. The fundamental criteria used to determine if a topic should have a standalone Wikipedia article is WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." However, using the general notability guideline for journals is contentious because very, very few journals meet these criteria. Academics generally spend little time writing about their journals in depth (which would comprise significant coverage), and when they do there is often a COI (i.e. the writer lacks independence, such as an editor summarizing a journal's publication history in a retrospective or a "meta" note published with a journal issue). Using GNG isn't necessarily a problem, but many editors want looser standards for journal notability, for example because journals publish the reliable sources we often cite on Wikipedia and it serves readers to have information about the publishers of those cited sources. For that reason, editors write essays (like WP:NJOURNALS) that attempt to formulate alternative criteria. I want to emphasize that the criteria in that essay (such as C1, about indexing in selective database indices) is a frequently-used guide but is itself contentious. Note that C1 and C2 are an attempt to lower the bar so that even academic journals that don't meet GNG might be accepted as standalone Wikipedia articles! If Ancient TL doesn't meet that lower bar (or WP:GNG itself), it may make sense to mention it on other Wikipedia articles where it is relevant... or to recreate the article in the future if it receives more attention from academics. You are likely correct to focus on C2 here. C2 is tricky because it's hard to tell what is a significant number of citations in a journal's particular subfield. Suriname0 (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that clarification, @Suriname0. That is quite helpful and interesting. I suppose I would then only say that citation counts mentioned in my previous comment are generally considered high in geosciences and archaeometry. And then given the ambiguity involved, perhaps it would be best to err on the side of preserving the entry, especially given the broader context mentioned by @GeoGammaMorphologe. TroutbeckRise (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randykitty OK, now, I understand. Thank you for making this clear. In fact not having this listing was so far one of the major critics the journal received from its own community. But I also suggest looking up **how** such indices are generated and **how** a journal becomes listed.
    Here are a few examples regarding ATL:
    • ATL articles do not have a DOI simply because the membership in the Web of Science, for instance, has a (low) price tag. In the past, readers had to pay for the print version of ATL; this was abolished in 2014 (I think) in favour of an online-only version. However, with funds, there was no money for the DOI registration. This situation will now change with the new publication platform, and the affiliation of the new editor will cover the costs.
    • To get indexed and receive an impact factor, you have to fulfil a certain number of criteria, for instance, a certain number of publications per year. ATL was consistently below that threshold, but this is related to the journal's nature and purely non-profit nature not its significance in the field. Even for professional publishers with all their resources, it takes years to get a journal indexed. For instance, Geochronology (https://www.geochronology.net/index.html) was launched in 2019, it received in IF in 2024.
    Bottom line, for diamond open-access journal it is not so super easy to achieve a listing, it needs resources. Still, I may add more examples that are somewhat independent (so far examples from academia are counted as independent; of course, no one explicitly writes about Ancient TL but uses the source).
    * To calculate luminescence (and electron spin resonance) ages, a few online calculators exist,
    **all**
    use data published in Acient TL
    because it contains important values agreed by the community and is used a reference:
    • DRAC caculator [(Durcan et al., 2015, Quaternary Geochronology)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quageo.2015.03.012); website:
    https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/dges/research/quaternary/luminescence-research-laboratory/dose-rate-calculator/?show=references
    • µRate [Tudyka et al., 2022, Archeometry](https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12828), website: https://miu-rate.polsl.pl/miu-rate/login
    • DRc [Taskalos et al., 2015, Archeometry](https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12162)
    • eM-Age program: https://github.com/yomismovk/eM-Age-program (the article itself is published in Ancient TL)
    • DIN 44808-1:2024-06 (https://www.dinmedia.de/en/draft-standard/din-44808-1/380077566) referes explicitly to five articles published in Ancient TL (18 references in total). Unfortunately, the norm is behind a paywall, as most of the norms are. Cited in this norm (available in German and currently as a draft in English) are the following articles from Ancient TL: Aitken (1992, ATL 10, 15-16); Duller (2011; ATL 29, 1-3); Duval et al. (2017, ATL 35, 11-39); Grün (1992; ATL, 10, 58); Mauz and Lang (2004, ATL 22, 1-8).
    • Equipment manufacturers refer to articles published in Ancient TL: https://www.lexsyg.com/applications/geology/radiofluorescence.html and publish technical notes in this journal: https://www.freiberginstruments.com/fileadmin/data/publications/12_Richter_et_al_2012_BetaQuelle_AncientTL.pdf; https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/temperature-calibration-and-minisys-temperature-upgrade-for-the-r GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genuinely, thank you for creating an account to participate in this discussion! Testimonials from researchers in a field can be very useful. I want to quickly point you toward Wikipedia's WP:COI policies; if you have any COI (such as being a current or former editor for Ancient TL), you would need to mention that in a reply or in an edit summary. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Suriname0 Sorry, you are right; I should disclose that I am not unbiased because I am an editorial board member (not the editor) of the journal (the new website is not online yet, though). Two things are, however, important: When I created the original entry on Wikipedia in 2015 and made modifications in the past, I had no such affiliation. Coincidentally, I was just appointed, and we had the first meeting literally a day before ATL was flagged for removal from Wikipedia (which, admittedly, was a little bit odd). My term on the board is limited to a maximum of two years, but I hope that you see that, besides this conflict of interest, the arguments I have given are based on facts and should speak for themselves. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this kind of thing is not generally a problem (and quite common for academia-related articles which have lots of gray area). Just needs to be disclosed. Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know. Yes, I am also currently an editor for Ancient TL. TroutbeckRise (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty and @Suriname0, I may raise two more asepcts, and then I will rest my case and wait for the final decision.
I argue that understanding how knowledge is derived is crucial but has been underrepresented in the discussion so far. Imagine I were to write a new Wikipedia article about the timing of the last glacial ice shield retreat in Europe. Because I have a little bit of an understanding of the subject, I would use luminescence data from loess deposits in Europe. Of course, I would cite only sources with a high reputation in the field, such as Quaternary Science Reviews, Nature Geoscience, Science, Quaternary Geochronology, etc. Assuming that I do not screw up the writing, there would be little doubt about the validity of the content, given that it uses highly acceptable sources. But here is the catch: all those articles and their discovery likely sit on parameters published in a journal, eventually not considered worth being listed in the first place. This is a severe problem because it changes how knowledge is generated and reiterated, and it gives more credit to secondary sources than the basis they are using to infer their discovery. I cannot see how this is in Wikipedia's genuine interest. Still, I acknowledge that this is a tricky matter, given the lengthy discussions linked by @Suriname0.
The other point I may raise is that we live in a time where the dissemination of knowledge is a very successful business model. So, instead of giving society free access to knowledge, researchers (paid by taxpayer money) summarise their findings. Then, the taxpayer pays again in one way or another for every article published. And yet, still, large parts of our societies will never have access to that knowledge for pure business reasons. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it tries to provide free access to knowledge to everyone, and this is, on a very different level, of course, the same idea as a community journal where volunteers do everything, apply the same ethical standards as other, listed, journals but distribute free under CC BY licence conditions do not charge the author. To me, this is the original idea of Wikipedia, and I find it daunting to realise that Wikipedia itself is a little bit reluctant to support the engagement of others in that regard.
I did not even blink when a large part of the content from the article was removed in 2022 because this was likely indeed overly promotional. But what is on the vote here is the deletion of mainly technical information. Is it really that essential to have it removed?
Well, I guess that's all I have. Thanks for reading and for considering my arguments!
GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Independent sources are sufficient to demonstrate that this journal has a meaningful presence in the professional world of a legitimate scientific field. Given that, I am satisfied that this article provides a home for useful information about a topic which readers would have reason to want to know. In my own experience, these sorts of articles can be quite useful for vetting sources of information, both in my professional life and while editing Wikipedia (and even while just reading the news). So I think this article is a net positive for the encyclopedia and common sense would suggest that it should be kept. Given the limitations of the WP:GNG guideline and the lack of consensus around the WP:NJOURNALS essay, I think common sense is the best thing we have to go on. Hence, keep. Botterweg (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for addiing some sources to this article. Unfortunately, in-passing mentions in obituaries of the founding editor do not contribute to notability. And an editorial published in the journal itself is not independent and does not contribute to notability either. So basically your motivation for your "keep" !vote is WP:ILIKEIT. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the (canvassed?) Keep views here carry little if any P&G weight. But even discarding those, we don't yet have consensus--or even quorum--to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since we seem to start again, a few more arguments: Ancient TL (or more the editor) has a seat in the committee of the elected international trapped-charge dating association (results from 2023: [1].)This meets WP:NJOURNALS criteria 1 because the journal is considered influential enough in its subject area to grant such a position (no other editor from higher ranked journals are listed automatically). The journal is further listed in the European Parlament Library [2]. The journal certainly fulfils WP:NJOURNALS criteria 3 ("The journal is historically important in its subject area."), which is explained in detail in a dedicated article (yes, in Ancient TL, but I cannot explain it much better than as it is written) [3]. The more as even today (see my links in comments above) articles from the 90s are still cited in recent articles. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass GNG or NJOURNALS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather see a merge, but there's no obvious target (Center for Archaeometry the original publisher, being ideal IMO), therefore delete. No independent sources. This fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not from this field, so I don't have expertise on this journal. But it seems to meet WP:NJOURNALS criteria 1 ("considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area") and 2 ("The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources"). These are actually pretty clear-cut: many of the articles are cited by journals that are clearly reliable (I see plenty of Nature and Science, as well as Quaternary Science Reviews [4] [5]. The question of independent, third-party sources is more iffy. But there are university webpages that mention basic details about the journal: [6], [7]. It's sometimes also described as a subject in its own right in scientific papers: [8] - "Optimization of ambient lighting in luminescence dating laboratories has been subject to several studies since the early days of thermoluminescence dating. Almost all of these are published in Ancient TL.") It's not exactly in-depth coverage by the New York Times, but it's worth pointing out that the vast majority of clearly notable journals for which Wikipedia has dedicated articles would fail this criterion if we demanded that sort of coverage. In short: WP:NJOURNALS seems to be clearly fulfilled. The thin existence of third-party sources makes it an edge case, and I would much prefer to err on the side of keep in cases like that. --Tserton (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the result ends up being keep, I would volunteer to clean up the article a bit and add the third-party sources. Tserton (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which third-party sources? Just some citations won't do. Unless I'm terribly mistaken (which may well be given the wall of text above), there's not a single source about the journal. That articles that appeared in a journal are cited by reliable sources is irrelevant (WP:NOTINHERITED). --Randykitty (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randykitty, "Just some citations won't do". You can certainly bring that argument, but then we narrow it down to something that exists only in a few disciplines where a particular journal (not articles) gains much public attention. In academia, citations count. Ancient TL serves a niche, and notability relates to the field (cf. WP:NJOURNALS). Your striking argument is that the journal is not listed in some sources detailed in WP:NJOURNALS. Foremost, Scopus, FENS, JSTOR and  Journal Citation Reports. This was not on debate anyway, but since WP:NJOURNALS only needs one of the criteria fulfilled, I may suggest changing WP:NJOURNALS (or at least reaching a consensus there) before continuing here. From where I stand, this would be a fair and logical procedure and it would also serve the "in dubio pro reo" idea. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty: Respectfully, I think you're wrong. The NJOURNAL notability criteria, as I interpret them, are that a subject only needs to be widely cited by reliable sources, which this journal clearly is. There doesn't have to be an article specifically about the journal, just third-party sources that provide information about it to form citable content for the page. As GeoGammaMorphologe notes, there are very, very, very few academic journals that are covered as a standalone subject by third party sources. Tserton (talk)
  • Yes, and there are very, very, very few academic journals without indexing that get an article here. Note that per NJournals coverage in selective indexing services constitute independent reliable sources, which this journal doesn't have. As we only have sources depending on the journal itself, we don't have anything to base an article on. The NJournals criterium on citations is rather subjective. What you find substantial, I deem not sufficient. NJournals needs overhaul, but have a look at its talk page: it's obviously an uphill battle to change anything or even maintain the status quo. --Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken more time to read into the WP:NJOURNALS discussion and admit that while looking at my field, thepressure is just too high to spend time writing articles about essential journals in the field. Disciplines are different, though. I think the Wikipedia community should preserve and curate this memory based on traceable details, and this should not be dominated by selected indices where a business interest certainly is one driving factor. At least, I would hope so. You seem to agree that WP:NJOURNALS lacks consensus and needs a change. Therefore, it seems fair to postpone the deletion discussion until the guidelines are more precise. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with @Tserton that this would count as notable under WP:NJOURNALS. While indexing can be part of a complete breakfast when judging notability and it's certainly unusual for a notable journal to not assign dois, neither is required by NJOURNALS. According to Criterion #2 of that essay, a journal is notable if it is frequently cited by other reliable sources. That's verifiably true of this journal given that Google Scholar shows its articles routinely getting hundreds and sometimes even thousands of citations in journals including Science and Nature. So under NJOURNALS, this would count as notable. Botterweg (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's what it means. Science or Nature are citing papers which happen to be published in this journal, that's not saying anything much about this journal per say. I bet if one looked hard enough there would be papers cited in Nature articles for journals that have been deleted as not notable here. JMWt (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To say that a journal is frequently cited means that papers in the journal are cited frequently. You're right that an isolated citation in Science or Nature wouldn't carry weight on its own, but in this case these aren't isolated examples. Google Scholar shows the journal being cited frequently in such sources, which is what it takes to satisfy C2. Botterweg (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the 'remarks' for WP:JOURNALCRIT C2 says nothing about being cited in Nature or similar. That's just an assertion by you. In fact it talks about the use of citation indexes, which as we have already heard do not actually index this journal. Relying on WP:NJOURNALS then making up what that essay actually says is a pretty poor way to present an AfD argument in my opinion. JMWt (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow. C2 states that a journal is notable if it's frequently cited in reliable sources, and the remarks recommend searching for such citations on Google Scholar. So the fact that Google Scholar turns up numerous citations in Nature-type venues would seem to be the very crux of the biscuit, no? Botterweg (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. When the notability criteria talk about being cited in reliable sources it doesn't mean how many times a paper has been cited in Nature or Science. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this falsehood, it still isn't true. JMWt (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at present. It has no doi for articles and isn't indexed. If that changes in the near future, then as far as I'm concerned that's an argument for !keep that has some weight. Until that time, there's nothing much here except WP:ILIKEIT.JMWt (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No DOI is indeed very annoying but not a WP:NJOURNALS criteria and should not be considered. Being indexed is one vivacious and possible criterion but not a compulsory one. Besides, this change is underway with the switch to the new publisher (see above) and the listing in CrossRef. My last information is that this will be completed by 2024. What about agreeing on a reasonable deadline for this change here, and if it does not happen as I claim it, we go ahead and delete the entry as proposed? This will serve both sides of the aisle. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok well you’ve been heard extensively. But as someone who has a clear Conflict of Interest (COI), there is no consensus to take any more notice than we already have of your opinion. JMWt (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment @JMWt, no problem, I got it and will then stay in the back. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We now have quorum, but I still see no consensus here. Please note that WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, not a guideline. There's no community consensus that meeting NJOURNALS is sufficient to establish notability, although the general view is that failing NJOURNALS is enough to justify deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the record: despite the wall of text above full of wikilawyering, this is an absolute fail of NJournals not to mention GNG. There are also serious problems with WP:V, given that there are absolutely no independent sources. --Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to come at this from another angle. To those advocating deletion: have a look at the citations of some of the articles from this paper. Not articles I cherry-picked - have a look at all of them: [9] There is a large number of papers that receive hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of high-quality citations. Most of these seem to be (I'm guessing archeological dating) method papers. I'm not from this field so I can't judge specifically, but in my field papers cited thousands of times by high-quality journals including Science and Nature would be among the field's seminal works. Step away from the arguments about how the notability criteria should be interpreted and ask yourselves: do you really believe Wikipedia should not have an article on a journal that has published - and by the looks of it, is still publishing - techniques influential enough to be routinely used in some of archeology's biggest discoveries? I'm genuinely surprised how clear-cut some people think the case for delete is.
And to reiterate, because there's been some (I have to say disingenuous) overlooking of it: there are third-party sources on this journal. They're not exactly deep-dive exposes, but there's enough information out there to form an article, even if it's unlikely to be more than a stub. Some examples:
  • [10]: "Optimization of ambient lighting in luminescence dating laboratories has been subject to several studies since the early days of thermoluminescence dating. Almost all of these are published in Ancient TL."
  • [11] "Also, smaller technical contributions to the field are reported in Ancient TL, started by David Zimmerman in 1977. Initially this was an informal newsletter, running a couple of issues a year, but Ancient TL became a recognized publication with an ISSN in 1983, and volume 1 was published that year."
  • [12] "Ancient TL is published 3 or 4 times a year at the University of Durham. This elegant journal includes articles on thermal luminescence and electron spin residents, as well as editorials and a column on computer methods....In addition, ancient TL produced a date list, providing detailed information and technical specifications on recent TL age estimates."
  • [13] "Since the autumn of 1977 a quarterly newsletter, Ancient TL, has been helping to exchange practical information on TL dating. It has been published by the Center for Archaeometry, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo."
And to those using the lack of indexing as an argument for deletion: why is indexing the be all and end all of notability? Most scientists find their literature through Google Scholar or by following citations from other papers, not indexing services. Tserton (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indexing services only include a journal after a commission of experts has investigated the journal in depth. Several people (like I myself) therefore regard indexing as an independent reliable source as required by GNG and argue (NJournals) that indexing shows that a journal is notable. If there is no indexing, a journal fails NJournals and therefore has to meet GNG by having sources that discuss the journal in-depth. This journal has neither, no indexing and no sources about the journal. --Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say If there is no indexing, a journal fails NJournals it sounds like you're claiming that a journal can only pass WP:NJOURNALS if it is indexed. I assume this isn't what you intended, since the essay explicitly provides other ways of establishing notability including locating citations on Google Scholar.
But more to the point, while I agree that indexing would have provided further support for the journal's importance to its field, I don't think further support is necessary. Just from Tserton's independent sources alone, I don't think a reasonable person could doubt that this journal is a key venue for work on thermoluminescence dating. That certainly seems like the sort of notable journal that Wikipedia ought to cover. Botterweg (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it strikes me that we have consensus on two things in the above wall of text: indexing and dois and their lack of for this journal. Those arguing the notability criteria and community consensus need to change should have that argument elsewhere IMO. JMWt (talk) 08:36, 31 October 2024 (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/Ancient_TL&oldid=1259545138"