Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nom without any other "delete" !votes.. Randykitty (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources establishing the notoriety of the journal. Perfektsionist (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: According to MIAR included in several highly selective databases. Clearly meets WP:NJournals. Article is too brief and fails to show notability clearly (although having an impact factor, even from 2012, should have been a warning sign), but that's not a reason to delete. Failure of WP:BEFORE. --Randykitty (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The journal being "included in several highly selective databases" only indicates that it exists. What significant coverage from reliable and independent sources do the databases bring? Perfektsionist (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussions on the talk page of WP:NJournals. Several of these databases (mainly Scopus and the Journal Citation Reports) provide detailed analyses of citation patterns indicating the impact that a journal has. Inclusion in such databases has been taken as evidence of notability for well over 10 years now. I recommend you withdraw this AfD, as I can confidently predict that it'll go nowhere and is basically a waste of good editing time. --Randykitty (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a nearly century old journal indexed in multiple selective databases (e.g. Scopus). Clearly notable and influential. (As a side note, we cite it ourselves well over 200 times on Wikipedia). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I request the withdraw of this AfD. Perfektsionist (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.