Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native Plants Journal (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. As with the previous AfD, there is consensus not to delete, but no consensus to keep or merge. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Native Plants Journal

AfDs for this article:

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was kept after a "no consensus" AfD almost 3 years ago in February 2021. Since then nothing has changed: the journal is still not indexed in any selective databases and there are no independent sources. In the previous debate several arguments were brought forward to argue in favor of notability, but none was supported by sources, making this a clear fail of WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. There does not appear to be a good merge target. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, Canada, Mexico, United States of America, Idaho, Indiana, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, it appears not much has changed for notability since 2021. Still the same sourcing issues as back then. Oaktree b (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gscholar results are simply articles in the Journal, I can only find one citation in Jstor for this journal. Not seeing that it's been increasing in notability since the last relist. Oaktree b (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not my area but I think characterising the previous AfD as "no consensus" is a bit misleading; the closing summary by Sandstein was "The result was no consensus. Consensus to not delete, but no consensus whether to keep or to merge to Society for Ecological Restoration. ...". The debate centered around whether indexing in selective databases was necessary. Also, is CAB Abstracts not selective? I had thought they were to some extent at least. If I don't revisit this, then I'd suggest at very least merging to somewhere, though I agree picking a target might be the problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ETA. Via Newspaper.com search, there's a little coverage in The Spokesman-Review (13 Jun 2004, p. 71) relating to its fate after the close of University of Idaho Press. Also mention in Southtown Star (31 Oct 2004, Page 72) on it being included in a botanical garden collection. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Society for Ecological Restoration. No reason to delete when we can merge. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Headbomb, I found the arguments in the previous AfD about not merging here quite convincing. --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also can't merge into University of Idaho Press as that's been turned into a redirect (though I don't think that was the best of decisions). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three years = more than enough time to address issues raised in the previous AfD, but the article's problems remain. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Headbomb. Three years is indeed more than enough, but redirects are cheap, and the history will be available in case the journal becomes independently notable. Owen× ☎ 17:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the benefit of deleting a journal that is frequently cited by reliable sources. -- GreenC 15:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same guy failed to delete it years ago, trying again now. The article reads: The journal was established in March 2000 as a cooperative effort between the University of Idaho and the USDA Forest Service, with assistance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the USDA Agricultural Research Service. A university working with three government agencies created a scientific publication that is widely used. Common sense, its notable. Dream Focus 03:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1/ consensus can change, 2/ WP:NOTINHERITED, and 3/ we're 3 years further down the road and there's still no independent sources or indexing. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Dream is making an inheritance argument (an essay concerning arguments to avoid during AfD). He is saying it's WP:COMMONSENSE (policy) due to the number of sources that cite the journal, and the journal's pedigree in the academic + government world. Also Espresso Addict gave some sources above, and I linked to a bunch that could be looked into more closely. All this combined makes me think it would be a mistake to delete. If the article is kept, I would make an effort to improve the article with these sources. I will not do so while the AfD is ongoing, because it's so late in the process and so many Merge/Delete votes already a WP:HEY would be very difficult to achieve, and I don't know what high-bar HEY standard people will demand to change their vote (and most people never change their vote regardless). -- GreenC 16:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources??? Those listed by our coffee drinking friend don't seem to meet GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Spokesman-Review (13 Jun 2004, p. 71), relating to the journal's fate after the close of University of Idaho Press, looks OK to me. The gross word count is low, but the coverage is significant enough, in terms of about the journal. The other source Southtown Star is not significant coverage. A general search of the WP:Wikipedia Library finds 1,683 results, if anyone wants to dig deeper. -- GreenC 18:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the second one isn't any use for the article, I just thought it showed holdings of the journal, which does speak somewhat to importance. The first does at least provide an iota of information. I suggested a possible merge above, but I'd be equally happy with keep, fwiw. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: trying for a consensus, although one doesn't appear likely. Prefer not to revisit in 2027
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in the first 50 Google Scholar search results for the term "Native Plants Journal", I found 47 Native Plants Journal articles had been cited 1,886 times. There are dozens of additional Google Scholar search result pages (although their relevance declines after about 30-40 pages of results). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a single researcher with less than 2000 cites would not or only barely qualify for an article. For a journal that has been around as long as this one, 2000 cites frankly is rather pathetic. --Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we are talking about native plant journals. Not comparing it to eg. Science. There is such a thing as relative size. Wikipedia has room for notable small journals, if they are important within their field. I'm not an expert on native plants journals but we can do some preliminary search engine checks and according to Randy Kyrn below, they found what appears to be evidence this journal has prominence. Your response was "not impressed", OK, well I don't know how to respond to that. Do you have evidence to suggest it is not a prominent native plants journal? -- GreenC 14:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot prove a negative. Once notability is questioned, it has to be shown that there is notability, not the other way around. The closest one can get to "prove" that a journal is not notable is to show that there are no sources meeting GNG and no selective indexing meeting NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure if this helps the consensus any - but I'm going to come down on the keep side. As per A.B., NPJ does appear to be a journal with a significant quantity of citations to meet WP:NJOURNALS and therefore deserving of an article. ResonantDis_tortion 12:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion here and at the 2021 deletion attempt discussion and the fact that the Journal is an important historical and academic source of literature on its topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Any evidence for your assertion that the journal "is an important historical and academic source of literature on its topic"? (Except your personal opinion, of course). --Randykitty (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several things. The Journal, carried by libraries, is published by the University of Wisconsin Press, which doesn't publish just anything. It is not a random or vanity publishing outfit. I also did a search request for "Journals about native plants" to check on other journals about native plants, and found this one continues to have prominence. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three things: WP:NOTINHERITED (we regularly delete non-predatory journals from major publishers if they don't meet our notability requirements) and second, forgive me, but I'm not really impressed by the fact that Bing thinks that "Native Plants Journal" is a good match for a query "journals about native plants". And three: library holdings are notoriously unreliable on WorldCat and often completely out of date. Some libraries list journals, even if they don't carry them. So its very difficult to gage what are "significant holdings". --Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that WP:NOTINHERITED, too often used as "a given" in deletion discussions, is an essay. Essays have their place, but not as end-alls or final words. In this case I'm guessing that the inherited notability would be the University of Wisconsin Press which, as mentioned, is not a vanity publisher and, I'm guessing, picks and chooses wisely. The Wikipedia page on the Press mentions their publication of nine journals, Native Plants Journal is one of them (I know, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but commonsense seems a rule rather than an exception in this case). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2023 (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.