Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/France

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to France. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|France|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to France. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for France related AfDs

Scan for France related Prods
Scan for France related TfDs


France

[edit]

Janicke Askevold

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

I don't think she meets WP:NACTOR, no evidence of significant roles. Directing non notable films doesn't really add to WP:DIRECTOR. And only 1 hit in google news, which is unusual for someone with a career in Europe. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Chain

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Article was tagged for UPE by others and creator is indeffed as a sock. Article content is just basic resume/CV type material. I translated the 4 sources although do not have a full understanding of the context of the websites. Two are so flowery that they appear to be self-written. Could not find even one GNG qualifying reference. North8000 (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoé Kézako

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

Almost completely unsourced, heavily POV article. BEFORE showed no reviews or news. From what I can find, subject does not meet GNG. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vasculaghju

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

No refs on the page for many years. There appears to be another archaeological site in Corsica called Vasculacciu which could be an alternative spelling, but I'm unable to confirm it is the same place, and therefore cannot add any of the sources which refer to it. JMWt (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Google Maps can't find it under either name. DuckDuckGo fnds nothing for Vasculaghju other than a link to this Wikipedia article, but several entries for Vasculacciu. Apart from the u at the end Vasculacciu looks Italian, but Vasculaghju looks Corsican (and the final u looks Corsican in both). I suspect that both refer to the same place. Athel cb (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur Mino

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

Delete per WP:TNT, and for failing WP:SIGCOV. Article has major sourcing and verifiability issues. Several of the claims are not supported or only partially supported by the provided citations. Most of the cited references that are not dead do not actually verify the article content. For example, most of the cited sources do not name the roles she played in the productions or how long she played them, or review her performance at all. They only list her as a cast member in an un-named part, and do not review her performance. For this reason, I don't think we can assume the dead links are accurately verifying the content. The article will need a complete re-write which is why WP:TNT is a valid argument. Additionally, none of the sources have Mino as the primary subject so it is not clear at all that GNG is met. 4meter4 (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoli Isshiki

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No significant coverage in any of the sources. Two of the three cited sources don't even mention the subject, and the one source that does simply lists her as one of several singers in a chamber choir (she is one of four singers in the soprano section). 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked as promised, don't know yet. Solo appearance at the BBC Proms is at least something. I added some external links to check out. Her repertoire seems off the beaten track, plenty contemporary, and we might want to support that. I found the ref from which most of the article was taken and reworded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    adding: the French article has 24 references. I guess that some are those I also found (now in external links). Will look closer tomorrow, but someone knowing French might be more more successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: I haven't looked at those yet, but the English article is now referenced. For me, she is notable enough, having made interesting recordings, with notable ensembles and conductors, and only favourable reviews. She is not a diva-type soprano: that should not be a reason to delete. The article serves many links to music that is not normally in focus, both Baroque as contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the French sources, I need help to not misread the French:
    1. [1] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
    2. [2] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
    3. [3] recital
    4. [4] recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt I don't think this in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The last source is selling her CD and is not independent or significant coverage. The prod-s.com website also lacks independence. The Le Monde article spends half a sentence on her, and is a smaller not all that notable prize. The main prize went to another performer, Richard Rittelman, who deservedly is the focus of that article. Only the anaclase.com source approaches significant coverage (and honestly it isn't long enough to be considered in-depth as it devotes less than a paragraph of the article to her performance). Laurent Cuniot is the main subject of that article not Isshiki. There's not enough here to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Wikipedia only for those who win first prize? - This is a performer of several unusual recordings, and performances in Paris, Brussels, Proms, ... - Aldeburgh could be added. - Deborah Sasson was kept, but achieved less in the music world. She knew how to attract the press, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt This has nothing to do with the evaluating the worth of prize winners, but evaluating the quality of coverage of Kaoli Isshiki in sources. A half sentence of text is not significant coverage, and if the award were significant we would expect more coverage in independent media or academic publications. We can only build articles based on our notability guidelines which requires that we support articles with extant sources that contain significant coverage. That does mean that what journalists and academics choose to pay attention to directly impacts the types of articles we can create because we can't engage in WP:Original Research. That is both a limitation and a strength of writing on wikipedia. The fact that you have yet to locate any sources directly about Isshiki where she is the primary subject indicates that she isn't notable for wikipedia's purposes. This indicates that a journalist or an academic researcher needs to do some work before we can have an article and it is WP:TOOSOON for wikipedia to write on this person.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that our coverage should depend on one reviewer's or academic's personal attention or lack of that, when her contributions to music are facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then fundamentally you have missed the point of wikipedia's core policies at WP:No original research, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:SIGCOV. We can't build articles largely verified to primary and non-independent sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Informations about concerts and recordings are facts, not original research. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PSTS which states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. The issue here is that there is not enough secondary coverage of her performances and recordings to establish the notability of those performances and recordings, and to make sure the "facts" are presented in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Building an article from primarily primary materials and sources closely connected to the subject does not match the policy language at PSTS. At this point we have found zero secondary or tertiary sources with significant coverage. That makes the topic both not notable, and any article built from the current sources in evidence a violation of PSTS policy on the no original research page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Please educate me on my talk, not here. - Edit conflict, response only to the beginning of the comment above.) I didn't write this article, and probably would not have created it. But now it's there. I don't think we need "research" to agree that The Proms are notable, and that singing all of Monteverdi's Vespers (not just solos) is an admirable feat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting policy language here isn't about educating you Gerda (although if it does that is a bonus). It's relevant policy language to the discussion. Providing textual evidence for an WP:AFD argument is what we are supposed to do at an AFD for the benefit of all participants. I have provided a detailed source analysis below, showing how none of the references constitute independent significant coverage as required by WP:Notability.`4meter4 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, could you please notify relevant projects, such as Opera and Women (in Music, in Red), - Song is not relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Le Monde Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Non-notable award that receives only a half sentence of coverage in the article. The article is mainly about another person who won a different award which is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Anaclase.com review Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Article is primarily a review of Laurent Cuniot and the TM+ ensemble at the Maison de la musique. Isshiki is only mentioned in passing, and the paragraph she is in is primarily not about her performance but about the song cycle by Jonathan Harvey. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recital at prod-s.com Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN The PROD-S company is the production company which produced the recital concert by Ishki. As they are a production team directly connected to the recital, and promote their events on their website this lacks both independence and significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recording Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Vendor selling Isshiki's CD. Does nothing but verify a recording exists. It does not provide any information on the recording, and the website also lacks independence as it is selling a product featuring the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ruhrtriennale.de Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Artist bio at the website of Festival der Kunste which employed the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ensemble William Byrd Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Isshiki is listed as one of four sopranos in a chamber choir on the website of the choir itself. This is either neither independent or significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ludusmodalis.com Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Artist bio at the website of the Ludus Modalis website which employs the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Review at musica-dei-donum.org Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Review from a WP:SELFPUBLISHED non-notable blog. Not a reliable source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Philharmonie de Paris Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Performance archive of the Philharmonie de Paris. Verifies she performed with the orchestra in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
BBC Proms Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Performance archive of the BBC proms. Verifies she performed with the BBC proms in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Voce.de Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN Red XN Voce.de is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED personal website of Hans-Josef Kasper. Not reliable. May or may not be independent. No way to tell with a self-published source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Brusseks Philharmonic Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Website of the Brussels Philharmonic. It's the orchestra's performance archive and is both a primary source and lacks independence from the subject as the orchestra employed her. Can be used to verify the performance but is not usable towards proving notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Res Musica review Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an independent secondary source, but Isshiki's performance is only given a half sentence of attention. It is not in-depth enough to be considered significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
conservatoire-orchestre.caen.fr/ Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN This is an advertisement with ticket sale pricing and links for purchasing. It is not a review, not independent, and not significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
musicweb-international.com Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an independent review of album on which Isshiki performs on a couple songs as a guest artist. However, her performance was not reviewed at all by the reviewer who did not mention her at all in the review. She is only listed as a performer on the couple songs to which she contributed. Without any text reviewing her work, this is not in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
French Anthologies Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an independent review in a reliable secondary source. However, the review of Isshiki's performance is only a half sentence long. It's not in-depth enough to constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
www.recordsinternational.com Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN This is the website of a record label selling one its albums. Not independent nor significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources 0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
  • I found this Amazon listing which has her credited on all but one track. The main artist seems to be Pascal Dusapin. Then I found that her artist page at Amazon has four albums listed, one of which is under her own name. Here is another listing, from the Ensemble Vocal de Pontoise.Wikipedia:Notability (music) says our benchmarks for a standalone article on a musician include "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Maguelone (her record label) claims to have released work by Reynaldo Hahn and André Jolivet, who are independently notable, and to have been around since 1993. Overall, (and the coverage of her prize in a major French media source counts too) I think that this artist (just) meets WP:NMG, so I think this is a (fairly weak) keep from me. John (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient TL

[edit]
Ancient TL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | 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: [5].)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 [6]. 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) [7]. 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 [8] [9]. The question of independent, third-party sources is more iffy. But there are university webpages that mention basic details about the journal: [10], [11]. It's sometimes also described as a subject in its own right in scientific papers: [12] - "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]
  • 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]



Others

[edit]

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/France&oldid=1254084471"