- 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 keep. Star Mississippi 03:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Earth Sciences History
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Earth Sciences History (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)
I taged it for notability, but the tag was removed citing WP:NJOURNAL. But it is an essay not vetted into guideline. The refimprove tag was also removed. So I am sending it here as failing WP:GNG (no significant independent coverage. The refs cited do not provide such.) --Altenmann >talk 18:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. Included and analyzed in several highly-selective databases. NJournals explains why such inclusion is significant coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- NJournals does not explain that it is "significant coverage". But here is not the place to discuss this: as I said, WP:NJOURNAL is an essay and it cannot trump WP:GNG. You contributed to Njournals, so why don't you work on the promotion of it to the level of guideline? And during this promotion I will explain its many drawbacks. (And you will contest my arguments and I will contest you counterarguments... And w'all will have fun for several months :-) --Altenmann >talk 22:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep dual whammy of being indexed by Scopus and SSCI. Clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Invalid argument, not based on policies and rejected in several other discussions. Scopus indexes everything which is not nonsense, e.g., "Terra Antartica Reports", therefore it cannot be criterion of notability, only a criterion of scienticity. --Altenmann >talk 15:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- My argument is perfectly valid. That you do not like it is irrelevant. See also WP:1Q. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- It is not that I do not like it. I wrote it is not based in our notability guidelines. Of course, it is your right to invoke WP:IAR. If you think that WP:NJOURNALS is good to be an argument, please promote it to the level of guideline. --Altenmann >talk 23:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- My argument is perfectly valid. That you do not like it is irrelevant. See also WP:1Q. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Invalid argument, not based on policies and rejected in several other discussions. Scopus indexes everything which is not nonsense, e.g., "Terra Antartica Reports", therefore it cannot be criterion of notability, only a criterion of scienticity. --Altenmann >talk 15:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NJOURNAL, this journal is indexed by selective databases. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep – Per statements above. Svartner (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- 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.