Talk:Ornis Hungarica

Sourcing

• Now it has multiple sources cited incuding secondary source. Notability is hard to judge. Just like the notability of many other European birding magazines listed below. Best, IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.120.163 (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for your efforts, but I fear that you're mistaken on all points. First off, Google Scholar is not a source and being listed in it does not convey any notability, becuse it tries to be all-inclusive. Second, the Ornithology Exchange is an online community, again trying to be as complete as possible inproviding info on its chosen subject and the information that it presents is obviously provided by the journal (or copied from their website). So, no, the article still has no multiple independent secondary sources. Third, we have very clear notability criteria for scientific journals and this one does not seem to meet any of them. If no evidence for notability can be found, I will propose the article for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Bit surprised. Best wishes, IP

Deletion... merging?

How about instead of deleting, we create Hungarian Ornithological and Nature Protection Society and merge this article there? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be the Hungarian Ornithological and Nature Conservation Society, just created. Maias (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• If we can find some sources (and as far as I a concerned, just a homepage would be enough, we usually give learned societies quite some leeway), that would indeed be a good solution, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've merged everything at Hungarian Ornithological and Nature Conservation Society. Discussion can continue there, if need be. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)