User talk:Randykitty/Thoughts on NJournals

@Randykitty: A remark here, concerning Journal of Indigenous Studies. At the time, WP:NJOURNALS's three criteria were [emphasis mine]

1. The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
2. The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
3. The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history.

Whereas now they read [emphasis mine]

1. The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
2. The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
3. The journal is historically important in its subject area.

The first/only journal being published in Cree has a historic purpose and was certainly a point to note in the modern history of Cree people, which is why I'd argue to keep under that criteria. However, since then, the guideline has evolved and is now more about demonstrable impact rather than significance to someone. Under the revised wording / modern guideline, I wouldn't argue it to be kept under #3. It might still pass #1/#2 however, but it doesn't pass the new #3. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• You're right, I missed that #3 has been reformulated SINCE. What has always irked me about that Cree thing is that there was no source for this having been of any influence. The article is horrible, with a description of every single issue sourced only to the issues themselves... Perhaps there's a suitable merge target somewhere. --Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, the publisher Gabriel Dumont Institute of Native Studies and Applied Research is the natural merge target for a journal like this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

True, but at it's AfD, it was defended vehemently by its owners, I don't really feel like getting into a fight with them... --Randykitty (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)