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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia 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.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia 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.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
I object proposed deletion of the article per opportunity provided in the header of the proposal. Although I am not explicitly required, I will try to explain my objection. In short, I think that with my latest contributions in sourcing this article now even more easily fulfils WP:GNG. Also, if there is still any doubt on this (if for example for some reason I may fail to evaluate the situation appropriately) there are more suitable options to deletion. I exchanged some messages with the editor who made the original proposal. It may be informative for anyone involved and is visible HERE (my original, and the most recent exchange at this point). From what I can see Randykitty is strongly involved in this topic (so we should certainly take a note of any feedback), yet it seems to me that in this particular proposal editor just maybe gave a bit undue weight to WP:NJournals which in fact acknowledge that journals which may not fulfil this policy may still fulfil GNG. With 12 additional independent reliable sources since the nomination (now constituting 26 sources in total, over 20 fully independent, multiple with significant coverage) I think we now have unusually high number of references provided for a single journal. On this basis I will object the proposed deletion by removing the proposal in following days before the deadline linking it to this comment (if nobody else will do it be fore me).--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
