User talk:Teluobir

Thanks for your contributions to Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You're welcome. It was a translation from a Spanish article, about an important historical journal. I think deleting this sort of contents from wikipedia is poor judgement respondinf to rigid rules that end up in absurd situations. Indeed, the requires sources do not exist fot this article. Yet, it is worth existing.

Absurd in any possible way to look at it —but as Ubu rules, who am I to oppose his political philosophy?

Best Teluobir (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for writing to me. The guidelines in WP:NBOOK are quite clear. I can't comment about what goes on in other Wikipedias. They are a separate community. Have a great day! Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 12:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a scientific journal: not a book. So you are showing here that you did not even pay attention to the subject matter of the article before deleting it. The article actually does meet 2 of the journal's criteria… But anyway… It is really something.

All the best in qualitative endeavours. Teluobir (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for writing to me. Whether it is a scientific journal or a book, the article needs sources which the present article does not have. @DoubleGrazing has also rejected the submission of this draft. I have no opinion if this article could be notable, but you will need sources to show that. Have a good day! Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 13:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, DoubleGrazing, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

This is asserted to "Meet[] Notability_(academic_journals)", which may well be the case, but in what way does this satisfy WP:NJOURNALS, and what evidence is there to support that? We really need a bit more than just a library catalogue record showing this exists/-ed.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The journal appears to satisfy WP:NJOURNALS through Criterion 2 and Criterion 3. It is a historically important scholarly journal that published influential research and continues to be widely cited in the academic literature more than a century after its publication. Its enduring use as a reference in modern scholarship demonstrates a lasting impact on its field beyond the mere fact of its existence. If additional independent historical sources are required to satisfy WP:GNG, I would appreciate guidance on what types of sources are considered appropriate for nineteenth-century journals, for which modern secondary literature is often limited. Teluobir (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Teluobir! Having a draft declined at Articles for creation can be disappointing, but don't be discouraged, it's common when creating your first article. Need help? For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know. To understand why your draft was declined, please read the reviewer's feedback and follow any links to help pages you've been given. If you're still confused, try asking for advice at the Articles for creation Help desk. For peer support regarding all other editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a friendly question and answer hub for new editors. We'd love to see you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I have to say I find this decision difficult to understand.

The journal appears to satisfy WP:NJOURNALS through Criterion 2 and Criterion 3. It is a historically important scholarly journal that published influential research and continues to be widely cited in the academic literature more than a century after its publication. Its enduring use as a reference in modern scholarship demonstrates a lasting impact on its field beyond the mere fact of its existence. If additional independent historical sources are required to satisfy WP:GNG, I would appreciate guidance on what types of sources are considered appropriate for nineteenth-century journals, for which modern secondary literature is often limited.

This journal is a historically significant publication, and the fact that it lacks modern secondary sources is largely a consequence of its age, not of its importance. Many comparable historical journals already have Wikipedia articles, often created years ago under less restrictive review practices. It seems odd that an article on the same kind of subject would now be rejected simply because it is being created in 2026 rather than in 2009.

The review asks for multiple independent secondary sources demonstrating notability. My difficulty is that, for a nineteenth-century scholarly journal, such sources may simply not exist in the form expected by current AfC standards. Its significance is instead reflected by its continued citation in the academic literature and by its role in the history of scholarship. If those forms of evidence are considered insufficient, I would appreciate guidance on what kind of sources would satisfy the requirement in this particular case.

Could someone explain how historical academic journals that predate modern publishing practices are expected to meet WP:NJOURNALS? I am genuinely trying to understand how this criterion should be applied here.

I would appreciate a discussion of the policy rather than a blanket statement that "a bit more" evidence is needed, since that does not make it clear what evidence is actually missing. Teluobir (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)