Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shii Studies Review

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. I'm not seeing evidence of this meeting any notability criterion, nor am I seeing a persuasive IAR argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shii Studies Review

[edit]

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

Shii Studies Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded with reason "Is indexed in some selective databases. as ias.edu". However, ias.edu is not an indexing service or database. PROD reason stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you perhaps give us a link that actually shows that this journal is well-cited? Just a bunch of WP:GHITS doesn't do the job, I'm afraid and GScholar (click the link "scholar" in the header) gives not a single citation... --Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1/ It was you who argued this was notable because of the number of GHITS, not me. 2/Please provide a source for the assertion that this is "the second most reliable academic Shii journal". 3/ And although Humanities journals are generally less-cited than journals in the Social Sciences (and even less in the Sciences), it is rather rare to find a journal that after 3 years (an admittedly short period) is barely cited or even not cited at all. --Randykitty (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. I meant that referring to WP:GHITS as wrong view is not acceptable not referring to Goolgle search. 2. Since there is no other academic journal in shii studies published by a notable editor and publisher, that proposition is true. 3. If it is not cited then what does the search show? It is already cited in more than ten English Wikipedia pages (as a minor evidence). Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1/ I don't understand what you are trying to say. You linked a Google search in your original comments. Far as I can see, GHITS applies. 2/ This looks like WP:SYNTH. If there are indeed only 2 journals in this subject area, then either saying "the second most reliable academic Shii journal" or "the least important academic Shii journal" would both be correct and both are meaningless, because not based in policy. 3/ Being cited in WP pages is absolutely meaningless. I hope I don't even need to explain this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. I said GHITS is not true for this case because here the google search shows the "academic websites" which mention the journal not ad hoc non-reliable websites. I hope you understand. 2. This is "the least important academic Shii journal" is not correct because there are many academic journals published by non-notable editors and publishers. Then my proposition is correct and meaningful. 3. These are the coverage of the publishing of the journal by reliable independent sources: [1], [2] by Mehr News Agency, [3], [4] by Shianews, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are press release (the English sources at least, since I can't read Arabic) simply announcing that a new journal exists, not independent coverage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says non-independent press releases are unacceptable, not all of them. These are independent sources. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ali Pirhayati, a press release is an official statement that the organisation gives to the press. A press release is written by the organisation itself, so never independent. PJvanMill)talk( 14:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A handful of citations is not unusual, and not an indicator that the journal is notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The number of citations is not handful. [10][11][12][13][14]. Of course, these are Persian sources that indicate the position of this publication in the Islamic world and even non-English speakers. Good luck Shiasun (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The journal is barely cited and has an h-index of 2. There is one paper cited 6 times, another cited 3 times, one cited twice, and then about 15 papers cited once. Our least notable scholars have more citations than the entirety of this journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think google scholar lists all the sources with a reference to this journal. It is mainly based on European languages and it does not even cover all of the books/articles in these languages. For example I don't think it covers [15], [16] and [17] which have a reference to this journal. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GS covers any language and most certainly covers any Wiley journal, any journal listed in JSTOR, and anything that is also listed in GBooks. In addition, I just went through the Wiley article that you linked to ([18]) and it does not even mention this journal, nor does it cite any article published in this journal (the word "review" comes up with 3 hits, neither of them the Shii Studies Review). As Headbomb said above, a smattering of citations is not enough for notability. Even more so if some of those citations don't exist... I understand that it is frustrating when an article that you created is nominated for deletion, but now that we're here, any "keep" !vote needs to be based on fact and policy or it will be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google shows two citations in Wiley; it seems that google services cannot be trusted. And where are the Persian articles mentioned above in GS? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't change the picture if you go from a handful of citation to a slightly bigger handful of citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You're quite welcome to ignore NJournals (which is designed to make it easier for journals to become notable). In that case, please tell us how this journal meets WP:GNG. The links you give are to non-selective databases that do not provide independent coverage. That there are notable scholars connected with the journal is irrelevant (see WP:NOTINHERITED), unless there is somewhere independent coverage about the fact that said scholars are involved with this publication. Without adequate sources, your !vote boils down to WP:ILIKEIT and will likely ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty: Thanks but it's not a matter of like or dislike. I think you're adhering to GNG more than necessary. This seems like an WP:IAR case. Look, the journal is indexed in multiple databases, advertised in various websites, managed by highly notable academics and has received works from known authors. So, it's not a WP:NOTINHERITED case. --Mhhossein talk 03:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a legitimate academic journal, It's published by Brill which is about as legitimate as you can get -- [[19]]. Moreover the journal's editors and advisers include some of the most notable authorities in academic Islamic Studies including Michael Cook, of Princeton University and Farhad Daftary, who is one of the most renowned authorities on Ismaili Shiism in the academy today. The advisory board includes includes notables from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Oxford University, the University of Chicago, McGill University, and other major establishments. See [[20]]. There are very few academic journals in the world devoted to the academic study of Shiism, this particular one is about the most Establishment vetted, supported and published one out there. To suggest it is not notable is more than a bit risible, at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJS ml343x (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the "keep" !voters: If this were not an academic journal but, say, a soccer club, would you still use arguments like "this is a legitimate club", "their executive committee has notable people on it", etc? Of course not! So why should we include an article on a journal that has, so far, not made any splash in the real world at all. Given its age, we don't even know whether it'll survive. (Yes, I know that Brill is a notable and respected publisher. I have some examples on my user page of journals from notable publishers that folded after a few years and never made any impact at all). At best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What matters is the current novel, not whether it survive in the future WP:NTEMP Shiasun (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're missing my point. At this moment, the journal is not notable. It may become so in the future, but at this time we don't even know whether it's going to survive, let alone become notable in the future. --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shiasun, the links you've added to the article and those listed by Pirhayati above all either just repeat a statement from its editor, or just repeat the journal description. These are not independent sources, they consist mostly of content written by the people who work on the journal. They do not indicate notability. PJvanMill)talk( 22:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shii_Studies_Review&oldid=995436329"