# Talk:The Cormac McCarthy Journal

I hate to pee on the party, as obviously a lot of effort has gone into this, but having looked at several references, I do not see how this is notable. It misses WP:NJOURNALS by a mile, nor do I see the in-depth coverage of the journal, as opposed to its subject sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Even the reference for the hook in the above DYK nomination is nothing more than an in-passing mention. Perhaps I have missed something, so before taking this to AfD, perhaps Mujinga or Blz_2049 can list those references that actually treat the journal in depth? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Randykitty: I don't see how the journal misses the notability criteria "by a mile". As I read WP:JOURNALCRIT, The Cormac McCarthy Journal pretty clearly meets criterion 1 ("considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area"), criterion 2 ("the journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources"), and/or criterion 3 ("historically important in its subject area"). All of these criteria are considered relative to the field in question, which in this case is modern American literary studies. I discuss citation frequency and impact factor more below.You suggest WP:GNG requires "in-depth" treatment of the journal within at least one discrete source, divorced from any broader treatment of the journal's subject or subject area. But that's not the case. In-depth coverage of a journal within at least one single discrete source is not required, let alone coverage in isolation from the journal's subject matter. WP:GNG says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" and "no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple [secondary] sources are generally expected". There's plenty of nontrivial treatment of the journal in scholarly and journalistic sources, and those that describe its impact within its field of study typically describe it as influential and important for its role in establishing McCarthy studies as a recognized author-specific area of scholarship within American lit studies.I don't know what point you're trying to make about the DYK hook reference. Not every cited source in a Wikipedia article must also therein establish its subject's notability. The primary criteria for selecting DYK hooks are verifiability and quirky tendency to elicit a general reader's curiosity, so I'm not sure why you seem to imply a DYK hook reference would be unusually more likely to justify its subject's notability. The fact is verifiable. The source is reliable. That's all they need to be for their purpose. This strikes me as an irrelevant point that just muddies the waters.In the GA review, you raised the issue of its low journal impact factor (JIF) in passing; I now take that comment to be an implicit concern about WP:JOURNALCRIT criterion 2. I get that a super-low JIF can be a red flag for journals, particularly for those in STEM fields. But a journal having a low impact factor is also not inherently disqualifying and doesn't make it non-notable. Its JIF doesn't measure, for example, citations to the journal in the many book-length treatments of McCarthy's work. As the University of Sussex Library notes of Arts and Humanities Journals: "In fields where monographs are the dominant format for scholarly communications, metrics based on journal citation data cannot convey a complete picture of journal impact." For what it's worth, the Journal Citation Reports assigns the journal a field-normalized journal citation indicator (JCI) was 2.62 for 2021 and 1.08 for 2022, where 1.0 represents the average citation count for a given category—meaning The Cormac McCarthy Journal has actually been performing a bit better than average within its field of American literature, citability-wise. This kind of contextualization between academic fields with different citation practices is exactly what JCR intended when they introduced the JCI metric: "Providing this information ... will increase exposure to journals from all disciplines, helping users to understand how they compare to more established sources of scholarly content. By incorporating field normalization into the calculation, the Journal Citation Indicator will also allow users to compare citation impact between disciplines more easily and fairly" ("Introducing the Journal Citation Indicator: A new, field-normalized measurement of journal citation impact", 2021). I've now added the JCI to the article for that reason. The Cormac McCarthy Journal may not be lighting the world on fire, but it's not nearly as deficient as a glance at its impact factor alone might suggest.Look, I'm not saying that this is the most significant journal ever or anything. I marked this article as low-importance within every WikiProject it falls under. But "low-importance" ≠ non-notable. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 00:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't expect a wall of text in response to my simple question. So, just to pick a random assertion: on what source(s) is "those that describe its impact within its field of study typically describe it as influential and important" based? --Randykitty (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Re: "wall of text": Well... Yeah. You want to delete this thing I spent time on. And I don't think your challenge was so "simple", unless I'm meant to uncritically accept your premises and your selective interpretation of site policy, which I don't.Re: "on what source(s)": I recommend you read the article itself. You may compare the individual claims and citations there, where it counts. I'll admit that I didn't cite any particular source that can be quoted as saying "The Cormac McCarthy Journal is influential, prominently cited, and important enough to meet Wikipedia notability standards" in those exact words, nor do I (nor would I ever) use those exact words as such in article prose. But I'll respond to any specific challenge to the article prose itself. I'm not going to be drawn into this ridiculous shadowboxing.I'm curious what basis there is to exclude mention of any other possible scientometric index other than JIF. Is there policy to this effect? Because if so I haven't seen it cited so far. Maybe some users of a not-especially-active WikiProject deemed it so some time in the past, but I don't yet see why I'd have to accept some unstated consensus uncritically.Besides, I don't see what's so wrong with introducing one additional scientometric index. I understand that there are a variety of different proprietary measures, which makes it all the stranger that we seem to have picked one proprietary winner. I mean, are we sponsored by JIF™'s Clarivate?? Just kidding! Because, of course, Clarivate also provides JCI™, the index I'm trying to incorporate, so it's not even like I'm trying to smuggle in some wild unknown unproven party, let alone some untested competitor. This is literally the exact same institution, providing a different metric, a newer metric—one they've introduced to address criticisms and shortcomings of applying their own JIF to the exclusion of any others. Really feels like it would be unwise if we apply this single, admittedly limited measure—to a more exclusive, universal, exacting standard than its own proprietor advises—when we go about estimating significance. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 10:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
OK, I take this as you saying that your assertion about the importance if this journal is not based on any source saying this, but on your synthesis of multiple in-passing mentions and such. Why don't you point me to your most important sources? If those are satisfactory, I'll leave this article alone. That will save us all the effort of an AFD. As for the JCI, there are two reasons, one (less important) practical: It's already difficult enough each year to update the IF, if we list more stats, that will become almost impossible. The second reason is more fundamental, though. WP is supposed to reflect what happens in the real world. Now I don't know about you, but I've never heard an author say "let's submit our important manuscript to the Journal of Foo, because it has a high CiteScore/JCI/SNIP/take your pick". Like it or loathe it, but the only thing that authors/science evaluators/grant reviewers/etc look at is the IF. It's not the function of WP to right this wrong (and I personally think it's a wrong), it's our function to reflect real life. --Randykitty (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)