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 Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Neither the organization nor the journal seem to be very notable and both articles are bare stubs. Merging them will produce a slightly more "meaty" article that might just squeak by. Randykitty (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. This is a little hasty, the articles were only created days ago so it is natural that they would both be short at present. Articles have to start somewhere. Feel free to expand them. Mande Studies, established 1999, is a reliable source in its area and worthy of an article in its own right. Specifically, an academic journal article includes material that may not fit easily in the sponsoring organisation's article such as the journal infobox and when used in a reference it is good to be able to link directly to the source and get the ISSN etc rather than having to work through another article. They also are, as a matter of fact, different entities. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
There are many examples where journal infoboxes have been included in sections on a journal in an article on the publishing organization. Any wikilinks to the journal can go directly to that section. "Worthy" is not the same as "notable". WP editors don't judge worthiness or quality of subjects. We judge what |independent reliable sources say about a subject. Neither of these two articles has even a single independent reference. Both consist of only a few lines. Proposing a merge is therefore not premature. If ever in the (probably far) future more material becomes available, the article could be split again. Until that time, a merged article will be better. If you think this should be two independent articles, then please provide well-sourced content showing independent notability. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Nominating them for a merge two days after creation is premature. You don't know who might contribute to them and how they might expand. Sometimes it takes a while for the right editor to come along and do that but they are potentially quite different articles. It would be nice if instead of throwing tags and notices at everything you tried to address some of the problems you see. You seem to have access to good sources, why not use them to create some content or fix problems yourself? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
You are creating these articles, hence the burden to show notability is upon you. What makes you think I like to spend my time cleaning up after you? --Randykitty (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
That is a very telling reply if I may say so. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
