User talk:Tech Bytez

March 2024

San Diego International Law Journal

Can you explain why you requested deletion of this article, only to restore it (apparently from a saved copy)? To mask the fact that this article was rejected as a draft and to circumvent the Articles for creation process? In any case, I've restored the article history. --Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HI Randy,

Thank you for reaching out! My intention for requesting deletion was to maintain a clean edit history for the live page. During the editing phase, I made numerous minor edits, such as adding and removing spaces and subsequently "published" those edits, which resulted in a cluttered history. These trivial changes seemed distracting or irrelevant to future editors reviewing the substantive development of the article. My aim was not to mask any rejection or circumvent the review process (vetting is part of the process!), but rather to streamline the history for clarity and ease of understanding.

I appreciate your diligence in maintaining the integrity of the article's history. If there is a preferred method for handling such minor edits in the future, I would welcome your guidance. Tech Bytez MD (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy,

I hope this message finds you well. I'm reaching out to discuss the tags recently added to the "San Diego International Law Journal" wiki page, aiming to ensure the page meets Wikipedia's standards. I appreciate your time and guidance on how to address these concerns effectively.

Notability Concern: The initial assessment during the draft indicated that changes were made to align with notability guidelines. For instance, we added [specific changes/examples], showcasing a broader impact within the legal academia. Compared to other law journals on Wikipedia, our page provides extensive details on [specific comparative aspect], indicating a higher level of compliance with notability requirements. The nature of academic journals, especially in law, often limits external analysis, making traditional notability through media coverage challenging. However, recognition such as inclusion in the Peace Palace Library's top international law journals underscores its significance. This recognition was removed without explanation, and I would appreciate any insights or suggestions on this matter.

Excessive Reliance on Closely Associated Sources: The concerns about source reliance may not fully consider the academic context, where independent, reputable citations, like those from federal district courts and international studies, demonstrate the journal's influence and independence. These citations are from entities with no direct affiliation to the journal, underscoring its credibility and the integrity of its publications.

Infobox References Query: Additionally, I've observed references within infoboxes on similar journal pages. Could you clarify the policy on this practice? Understanding the rationale would help ensure compliance and consistency across Wikipedia entries.

I appreciate your guidance and the opportunity to address these matters. Tech Bytez (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tech, I'm a bit short on time, so telegram style... 1/ "Other articles". See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unfortunately, law journals is a neglected subset of academic journals that urgently needs cleanup. 2/ Citations. A handful of citations is nothing special. What is needed are independent WP:RS that discuss this journal in depth 'see WP:GNG). Alternatively, if the journal is included in selective databases (not ones that seek to be comprehensive, like Hein), see WP:NJournal (note that this essay is controversial and even when meeting it, some editors will seek to delete a journal that meets NJournals but not GNG). 3/ Infobox: if necessary, the info with source should be in the body of the article. We don't usually add sources in the infobox. That some articles still do this is another case of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (aka OTHERCRAPEXISTS...) Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Randy,

Thank you for your clarification. My concern is the requirement for "independent reliable sources that discuss this journal in depth." Considering that the notability of law journals often hinges on who and what cite them, this criterion essentially infeasible for a field where discussion tends to focus on the content of the journals rather than the journals themselves. How does this guideline apply to such a specialized niche, where in-depth discussion about the journals as entities is rare? 2600:1012:B15D:3A6A:184A:3E77:77DD:3D26 (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying goes for all journals, not just law journals. That's why we have NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Randy,

I understand your point, and that's precisely my concern. Different types of journals may have varied levels of discussion in secondary sources, influenced by factors such as their field, prominence, and audience. It would be helpful if you could provide an example of the kind of secondary source that would be deemed sufficient to establish notability for a law journal.

Additionally, regarding the guideline about sources being "too closely related," does this imply sources are considered too close to the subject, or topic?

Thank you. Tech Bytez (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources should be about the topic and independent of the subject. For the requirements of notability, see WP:GNG, which is the guideline that your article should meet, because the journal is not included in any selective database and therefore misses NJournals. To get an idea of what you are up against, have a look at these current deletion debates for other law journals: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Law School of India Review and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Journal of Law and Technology. --Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Randy,

Thanks again. I will check this out and get back to you. Tech Bytez (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy,

The NJournals page says, "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus. Being included in comprehensive (i.e. non-selective) indices and services like Google Scholar and the Directory of Open Access Journals are not sufficient to establish notability." Is listing in the Web of Science sufficient for meeting this criterion? Tech Bytez (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Web of Science is an access platform, it's not a database itself but gives access to a number of databases, the citation indices being the most important ones. Most of these databases are selective in the sense of NJournals, and most people accept inclusion in one of those databases as proof of notability. An exception is ESCI (Emerging Sources Citation Index), which has been known to occasionally include outright predatory journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randykitty (talk • contribs) 08:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Randy,

Thank you for the clarification. I will investigate further. Have a nice rest of your weekend. Tech Bytez (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy, this Journal has been accepted in Scopus --> Accepted Titles June 2024. Tech Bytez (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]