Talk:Humanity & Society

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 December 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	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.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recent edits based on WP:NJOURNAL and WP:JWG

The following advice comes from Wikipedia editors and is not official Wikipedia policy. However, they've been cited in support of content deletions, modification and tagging, so I guess I'll cite them too:

WP:NJOURNAL states: Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; however, most journals nowadays have home pages which may be used as sources for uncontroversial information. If the journal can be considered a reliable source, this will be often be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources
WP:JWG states: As a rule of thumb, if a journal is indexed in selective databases in its field, or has an impact factor, this will be enough to establish notability.
DGG's suggestions for what journal articles should contain (Listed as a "See also" resource at WP:JWG) states: What journal articles should have as content ... the two or three most notable or highest citation papers ever published

A recent edit summarized as: ("earliest" not supported by references, references recently added either don't mention the journal or just in-passing, remove link to one page of an editorial) added a stub tag. A stub tag is unnecessary, so I removed it. The same edit also added a notability tag, which I've removed per WP:JWG and WP:NJOURNAL cited above, as the journal does have an impact factor (albeit a low one presently), and it is indexed in selective databases, and it meets Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source. Besides all that, it is also covered in independent sources in more than just an "in-passing" fashion. The same edit also tagged "earliest" as unsupported. Perhaps, but our article didn't claim "earliest", it said "was one of the earliest", which is indeed supported by the cited sources. The sources explain that the non-mainstream field was developed in the '70s, as was the journal dedicated to it. A previous edit also removed a sentence which noted a few notable people and their published research articles, citing a non-policy. So I put them back, also citing a non-policy (see above). Perhaps a discussion could be had here on this Talk page regarding these issues? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What impact factor??? The journal is not indexed in any Clarivate Analytics (previously Thomson Reuters) database. Which selective databases? It's in none that I know of. WHere are the references that confirm that the articles published by those notable people had any influence on the development of the journal (see also WP:NOTINHERITED). The notability tag has been there for a while and was removed even though the article is still at AFD, meaning that notability is disputed. Copying a "statement of purppose" verbatim is rather promotional. Etc. etc. etc. WP:JWG is indeed no policy, but it explains clearly why certain stuff is appropriate and other stuff is not (and the reasons why are based in our normal policies and guidelines). --Randykitty (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023 edit

I removed the listing of the notable scholars who published articles in the journal; preserving here by providing this link. It's original research which comes across as an attempt to buttress the bona fides of the publication. The publications contents and approaches are discussed within the body of the article and this is sufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]