Talk:Sámi Dieđalaš Áigečála

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 May 2020. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This page was proposed for deletion by Randykitty (talk · contribs) on 15 May 2020.

	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.

Norway

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's "European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out!

Notability[edit]

In response to the proposed deletion, I'd note that SDÁ is notable as it is the first, if not the only, peer-reviewed scientific journal publishing only in Northern Sámi. There is not much written about the journal itself, but it is widely cited in books and articles discussing Sámi issues, languages, culture, etc. Carter (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on this, SDÁ is a Level 2 publication in the Norwegian Scientific Index, which is "reserved for the internationally most prestigious publication channels," marking it as being in the top 20% of serious publication channels in its discipline. As the article notes, it has also been recognized as an important channel and marker of the recognition and academic acceptance of the Northern Sámi language. Carter (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that following a "no consenus" conclusion to the previous discussion, the article has immediately been AfD'd once again on the grounds of lack of notability. Notability has been clearly demonstrated by the sources in the article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

??? The article is not at AfD, it has merely been tagged for notability, which following the previous AfD was not unequivocally established. All sources were available during the AfD and did not suffice to establish a consensus. --Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the previous AfD's lack of consensus owes more to a lack of participation, not the merits of the article or the notability of the subject. Carter (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]