Talk:ChemRxiv

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Notability

I added the notability tag to the article because, when I first looked at it, I thought it was a likely candidate for G7 deletion. There is no assertion of notability and the only references are to publications by the site itself and one of its parent organizations. I could see a redirect to American Chemical Society#Journals and magazines, as an alternative to deletion.

This issue becomes important when other organizations try to use this stub of an article as a model for their draft. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmcgnh: I have added independent references from unaffiliated organizations (Nature, Chem2W; in the second you'll actually find me quoted, but I don't think this qualifies as COI). Since then, two more societies joined, and more independent coverage shows up. Please have a look. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Egon Willighagen, definitely improvements, but I don't consider the notability issue as addressed. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? When I browsed news.google.com there are very many news items where preprints on ChemRxiv are cited. But I do not think it makes sense to add all those. What alternatives do you see that demonstrates the notability? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also just found that some 40-50 ChemRxiv preprints are cited in the English Wikipedia. Does that help in any way? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Egon Willighagen, sorry, no, that's pretty irrelevant. What's missing for notability is significant coverage of the organization itself; what the organization actually does, however much good (or bad) it does in the world, can only be written about based on what sources say about it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, give me a number: how many independent source does it need to be notable? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]