Wikipedia talk:Notability (periodicals)

New proposal

Okay, I've hammered out a beginning for this proposal. Please make comments below by creating a new section for each topic you wish to bring up. Please review the comments already made to make sure your point isn't already covered somewhere else. Thank you for your input and help on this proposal. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see, for consideration here, a failed attempt at Wikipedia:Notability (serial works). I don't know if it is too difficult to consider any other episodic published here (tv shows, webcasts, etc.) here. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that a periodical notability guideline might be useful, I think this proposed version has way too many exemptions and criteria that are unnecessary. I'll start sections for a those below. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the criteria are based on those found at WP:PROF, so complaining about the number of criteria doesn't hold water. There is no stipulation that notability criteria must be limited to a very small number (even though eight really isn't all that many). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest, perhaps, making one unified guideline for published works, maybe combining this proposed guideline in a simplified form with WP:NB. I also think that at least one "non trivial independent source" must be required to confirm notability and give enough substance to create an article above a sub-stub. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that. However, there would need to be something which specifically addresses periodicals as the guidelines for books mostly don't even apply to them. That's the whole reason I proposed this in the first place. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first four guidelines of NB are very similar, with the first one being what I have proposed above, and the others relating to awards, contributions to society and ect. (though a rewrite of this would be necessary), as well as being part of educational instruction. The other criteria mostly would be met alone by very few publications, and without 3rd party Reliable sources, I see no reason to include these. Combining with NB makes sense to me. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to have explicity standards for periodicals, I also think it would be wise to combine this with that for other published works. Maurreen (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a fairly crude merge of NB, the reference book proposal at the village pump, and this proposal at my sandbox. While it is probably riddled with typos, it might be able to serve as a base for a new streamlined proposal. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it over, and there's not really much mention of periodicals. It would need to be adjusted to include non-literary awards for periodicals (as many, many periodicals are not literature). I can't really see how it would work for periodicals and books. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "literary" as I agree that is much too narrow. I think that a combined guideline makes some sense, and by dropping a few of the most contested criteria, I think that it meshes well with this proposal. If you feel that you could make it more applicable to periodicals without changing the meaning, feel free to edit it. I don't keep my sandbox under lock and key. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should come up with a combination of this one, the books one, and the related proposal Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)? There are some good things on that page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative combo

I'm ambivalent in general. But I expect to make some gradual changes to Fiftytwo thirty's combination. Everyone please feel free to redo or undo as you see fit. Maurreen (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, maybe we should first discuss the overall scope of such a combo. I had expected the scope would just be about printed works. I'm open to something wider, but want to make sure we're aware of any current overlaps, etc. Maurreen (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 5

"The periodical is regularly cited in academic or scholarly works." - I disagree with this criteria. Books don't get away with it, and I see no reason a periodical should. Being cited doesn't it make it notable if there is no actual significant coverage of itself. And how do you define "regularly"? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Periodicals aren't books, so applying criteria for books here may not work. Also, WP:BK#Academic books implies that "how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media" is something which can be taken into consideration when determining notability. I maintain that if a book or periodical is cited by many academic or scholarly works, then it should be considered notable as those citing it show it is considered an authoritative source. "Regularly", as this is a periodical guideline, means that the publication is regularly used as a source for academic and scholarly research, and regularly cited by those works. "Regularly" meaning "occurs often" or "happens consistently". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Please Have a look at some of the arguments I have raised here. There is absolutely no reason why citations should be a criteria in itself. It will make unreferenced articles about currently NN periodicals proliferate. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be an "other consideration" as it is in at least one other guideline. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Anma must be right. How could you write an article if there aren't any reliable sources talking about the periodical? Peter jackson (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same way you can write about academics who haven't had reliable sources write large article about them: they are used as reliable sources and frequently mentioned in other sources. It's amazing what you can pull together from a large number of smaller mentions in places where a work is cited. As in WP:PROF, if a periodical is highly regarded enough to be regularly cited by academic and scholarly works, it's notable because of that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AnmaFinotera, Fiftytwo thirty and Peter jackson. This criteria seems too low a threshold. Nurg (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 6

"The periodical has or has had a significant circulation or readership." - also disagree with this. How do you define "significant" and how can one confirm either circulation or readership without actual reliable sources giving the work coverage? Circulation, in particular, can be a misleading number, particularly with trade pubs that might be sent automatically to any members. That doesn't make it notable or even widely read. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated in many other locations, specific magazines are not often (very rarely, in fact) the subject of articles, so limiting coverage here to only those magazines which have had articles written about them would reduce the coverage on that topic by well over 90% (though I'm guessing it's more like 95% or higher). If a magazine has a regular paid circulation in the tens of thousands, that's significant. If the paid circulation (meaning the number of magazines purchased by someone, whether an individual or a company/organization) is even higher, that's even more significant. Trade pubs sent automatically to members are still being paid for out of the membership dues. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources for circulation in many countries, such as the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Barnabypage (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "The periodical has or has had a significant commercial circulation or readership."? That implies it needs to be a periodical which is sold commercially, not just a freebie included with a membership. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AnmaFinotera. I don't see how notability can be based soley on circulation or readership figures. If indeed very few magazines are the subject of articles, then very few magazines are notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of high-circulation periodicals. Nurg (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 7

"The periodical has been published continuously for at least 10 years." - relevance? How does that make it notable? Many small town newspapers have been published continuously for 50 years, but that doesn't make them notable. Time in existence is not a relevant notability criteria. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree per AnmaFinotera. Also, many NN historical societies have long running publications that are not particularly notable.--Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid me. I meant to place this here at number seven. (moved)--Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree 10 years isn't really anything. You could publish something for 50 years in a little back water town and it would never become notable. If the only thing a periodical has to cling to is time, I don't really see it as compelling--Crossmr (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the adjusted wording I proposed above. I'm not talking about some little publication which is only circulated in one "little back water town". The newer proposed wording suggests "The periodical has or has had a significant commercial circulation or readership." The only thing which should need discussion is some sort of threshold for "significant". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this criteria, and thus agree with AnmaFinotera and Fiftytwo thirty.

Sorry, Nihonjoe, but the proposal as worded would apply to a 10-year-old publication in a little backwater town. It says, "If a periodical meets any one of the following conditions ... it is notable." It does not say it must be high circulation and 10 years old.
Longevity is not a sufficient criteria.
Also the aspect of commercial publication wouldn't sit right. A 100-year-old academic journal would not meet this criteria but a small, 10-year-old for-profit magazine would. Nurg (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that, even with your recent revision, you have still left the door open for backwater town newspapers. They may be commercially published, but still not be notable. Also, I would think that many commercial publications are being judged by the much stricter guidelines at WP:CORP. Time just cannot be a notability criteria. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 8

"The periodical is or has been regularly translated into one or more languages beyond that of original publication." - I think this is unnecessary and too specific. I would imagine there are very few periodicals that have been translated into another language that cannot already meet general notability guidelines and the other criteria. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this criteria. Translation as a sole criteria is too low a threshold. Nurg (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 3

"The periodical is or was published by a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society)." - I dislike this one all together. Smacks of intellectual elitism. Whether the periodical is published by a "society or association" that is "highly selective and prestigious" does not confer notability (notability is not inherited). While the periodical may be on topic in the publisher's article, it seems likely to me that many such organizations publisher regular periodicals that are not notable enough for their own article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is for periodicals like the Journal of the American Medical Association, for example. Again, this was adapted from one of the criteria at WP:PROF. If someone can come up with better wording, I'm all for it. I think this is a good one to have, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want to be careful here. Some scholarly societies publish a lot of journals, and some of the smaller and newer ones may not be wiki-notable yet. For instance, while the Journal of the AMS is clearly a notable mathematical publication, I'm not so sure about Notices, which is closer to a trade magazine for mathematicians. Is this criterion really necessary? Flagship publications of major scholarly societies are bound to have lots of scholarly impact, lots of citations, etc, and qualify under that criterion. Ray^Talk 04:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Perhaps "The periodical is or was published as the flagship periodical of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society)."? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AnmaFinotera – notability is not inherited. If a periodical is not notable on its own merits, material about it can be included in the article about the scholarly society or association, similar to the 2nd paragraph at Derivative articles for books. Nurg (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 4

"The periodical has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." - this seems a bit redundant to #1. How is it intended to be different? And how does one define "significant impact" and why only in higher education? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that, and I'm fine with combining it into #1 if no one else thinks it needs to be separate. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need?

I am curious about the perceived need of this. Maurreen (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because none of the other notability requirements offer much in the way of viably determining the notability of magazines, newspapers, etc. Articles are not generally written about a newspaper, about a magazine, about a journal, etc., even if the periodical is notable. This is an attempt to come up with some specific guidelines for showing notability of a periodical. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples of newspapers, magazines and journals you believe are notable, but that would fail the current WP:NB guideline because there are no articles, books, ... about them or awards for them, or it isn't generally considered to have made a significant contribution to a field? Such examples would make it more obvious to understand the need for this proposed guideline (instead of just using the books one, or a very slightly revised version of it to include periodicals). Fram (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "significant"? I would say that, for manga magazines (which is what prompted this), if it has published several notable manga series, or several series by notable manga artists. There are people who have argued against the inclusion of such magazines, though, even if they have this (in my opinion) obviously significant contribution. This is an attempt to try and address issues like this. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manga magazines are not my specialty (I know that Shonen Jump and so on are very notable, but there are of course many others, more specialized ones). I know though that for every slighly important Franco-Belgian comics magazines, I can find plenty sources to establish notability. A book like this has enogh info (in English and available online) to keep an article on e.g. Corocoro or Nakayoshi free from deletion under WP:N. Fram (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have Dreamland Japan. It is used to some extent for some magazines, but it doesn't tend to go into depth on any of them for the most part. There are other English books which mention various magazines, but not too many which discuss them in detail. I have a couple Japanese books which discuss specific eras of magazines and cover several in-depth, but even those are hard to find. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nihonjoe is right that the problem with using the gNG for this type of articles is the qualification "significant". I can easily find almost any academic periodical --whether I consider it notable or otherwise-- on one or another selective or semi-selective list of some sort from an independent reliable source. I can generally find a few sentences worth of discussion somewhere. But I can almost never find anything really substantial except for the two cases of an actually famous periodical, and a periodical about which there has been some sort of scandal. They are used; they are not discussed in a substantial way, because people make decisions on whether to buy the or contribute to them on the basis of what they see directly or the information they obtain from the listings-- or one what other people informally advise, not upon written sources or reviews. There have been attempts at formal reviews of academic periodicals, but the attempts have not been continued & there is no current source for them. For non-academic material, similarly only the most famous magazines or newspapers will be written about, except as incidental mentions. I could pull incidental mentions of a great many literary periodicals out of google books, --such things as saying that it was where someone published something, but this is not all that more substantial than what one can get from a citation index. We had similar problems with academics, until we adopted WP:PROF--it was necessary to go to some degree of convolution to explain how citations en masse amounted to a significant mention. The reason to adopt a separate standard, here as there, is to simplify the discussions by yielding a commonsense result that does not need elaborate afd arguments for every individual title. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG explains the situation quite well. Especially with commercial magazines and newspapers, it's very often very difficult to find articles written about them. However, it's much easier to find instances where they have been cited. A periodical that is considered reliable enough to be used regularly as a reliable source by a large number of other works (especially scholarly and other academic works) should be considered notable enough to have an article, just the same as an academic who is highly regarded and widely cited is considered notable per WP:PROF. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you equate reliability with notability? These are quite different concepts. Nurg (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some caveats

Perhaps the list should be divided into sufficient factors, and partially sufficient factors.

The periodical has been published continuously for at least 10 years.

I'm not sure I;m happy with this. some of the lowest quality periodicals have been published at a very low level for long periods. For example, my high school newspaper.

This would be another instance of the difference between a commercial periodical (one created to make a profit for the stakeholders) and one created and run for an educational purpose (your school newspaper) or one run by a non-profit organization . Educational and non-profit publications tend to be sold at or near the cost of production, and the main focus is not to make a profit (even though some of them do). If a commercial manga magazine (for instance) has remained commercially viable for 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years, that's notable. I'm fine with the timeframe being adjusted, but I think a commercial periodical which has been in continuous publication for a long period of time should be considered notable. This one isn't generally going to apply to academic periodicals because they would fall under the educational or non-profit area. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

translations

Many cult, missionary, and in-house commercial publications of no importance are translated as a matter of course into several languages. This is a contributing factor, not one that should hold by itself.

How did this suddenly become a religious thing? "In-house" also implies it's not commercial as it's for in-house use. If it's a commercial translation (meaning it's sold for a profit), then that's different. Religious materials are not usually (ever?) sold for a profit. Please see my comment above addressing this specifically. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

academic vs commercial publishers

Over history , the major commercial publishers have also published some equally significant periodicals. the most striking example of that is Nature, which ha always been a commercial production from the start. I don;t claim that everything they produce is notable, but there needs to be some mention of this. (I can thinkk of at least two commercial publishers whose every publication is notable--the former Academic Press, and Cell Press -- both of them, now part of Elsevier, for whom I would not make the same claim. It is possible that this might hold true for the pre-WWII Springer, but I need to check that. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why oh why...

...do we still do this? Why doesn't this page have one sentance: "See WP:GNG." The multitudes of individualized notability guidelines don't solve any problems, they only serve to obfuscate the core principles. What we need is easier to understand principles, and the GNG is perfectly clear, and does not need additional clarification. See also Wikipedia:Notability (Septuagenarian female plumbers with red hair and freckles) for further elaboration on this problem. --Jayron32 03:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. Let's drop this proposal. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do this because while The Journal of Virology is never going to have the ciculation numbers or generally recognized notability of US Weekly, I doubt anyone who reads US weekly is going to find a cure for Ebola or HIV. Advancing human knowledge and saving lives I would hope qualifies in your book as being at least as notable as whether or not Brangelina have adopted another baby. (I meant that to be funny, not snide). Mtiffany71 (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on proposed criteria

I've done some copyediting:

Intro was defensive in tone - fixed (just states the facts)
"Is notable" -> "Is likely to be notable". There will always be cases meeting a fixed criteria but needing judgment.
C3: "published by" -> "proceedings of". A society of the kind described may publiush many things, including annual trustee reports and accounts, but "being published by" doesnt make them notable. I think something like "a formal publication of" or "proceedings of" is what's really meant here.
C5: "Is regularly cited" -> "has had regular and significant usage as a citation". Ugly wording but I'm not sure if mere regularity is right. GNG considers that coverage should be significant. In the same spirit I wouldn't count "was cited once in 2006, twice in 2008, once in 2009" as sufficient even though it would be "regularly cited".
C6/C7/C8: all relate to different ways of measuring significance in its broad marketplace, whether by duration, evidenced circulation, pre-eminence, international translation/distribution, or whatever. Been bold and merged all these into C9 that emphasizes the underlying principle for which size, globalism and duration are examples of evidence.

A few specific problems in C6/C7/C8 that are resolved by merging into C9

"significant commercial circulation or readership" - Should "size of readership" in any criterion be audited readership? How do we assess the circulation of a magazine if it's also published online? can self-promoting owners inflate this easily? Can we distinguish "mailing list size" from "readers"? Also need to watch out though for tiny niche publications that then claim "we're the #1 mag for green flaky widget collectors!"

"translations": Too easy to have this without really being notable at all, unless specified to mean paper translation. Look how many websites are published in multi-languages. I run a publication through Google translate or I have an obsessive fan who religiously translates my monthly publication on the end of the world prophecies into Albanian, does that make it notable? Probably not.

too much scope for non-notable publications: Originally by being separate, C6/C7/C8 let too many in that really aren't notable at all. Are all student college mags notable? They might well be under this proposal (my old college's had a fringe magazine that interviews some of the incoming and outgoing college staff with a circulation of about 400 if that, but it's in 3 languages due to the area and has been published annually since 1970-something, once a year... all 10 pages of it). I think the merger into C9 took care of these kinds of issues though.

I haven't touched these but they need discussing as weak points:

C1: "in its field or sphere of influence, broadly construed" - remove as being unnecessary?
At present the proposal mostly excludes fanzines which is probably a good idea for now. But with increasing publication online, it may need a section on web-based publications, where size of audience is very hard to check and audience is often conflated with "people who once used our website and are hence emailed it as readers".

Some thoughts. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still have the feeling that having a guideline that is not based in some way in reliable source coverage, which, unlike WP:PROF, which this guideline was based off, gives very little content for a comprehensive article. Either combining this with WP:NB or dropping it and allowing the GNG to prevail. The way it is currently structured, it is unclear whether RSs are needed to declare an article notable. We could change this guideline to be like the above VPP discussion -- allowing criterion such as influence, impact, and citations as long as there is at least one review/other independent RS. Despite the changes, I fail to see the fix to the underlying problem --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Journals and their Editorial Boards

Seems like I'm a little late to the party here, but I would like to propose that where academic journals are concerned, the quality of the Editorial Board should be taken into account. I've been involved in some deletion discussions where a tiny closed-loop group of "experts" each vouch for the quality of each other's work and credentials but don't seem to have any credibility beyond themselves. If we're going to have a guideline for periodcicals which includes academic journals, I'd like to make sure that we can verify the qualifications and academic quality of the people serving on those boards. The members of the editorial board shouldn't all be graduates of the same diploma mill of which the Editor-in-Chief also happened to be University President. And the members should be extensively published in journals other than those on whose boards they are also members.Mtiffany71 (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]