Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs

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 merge to Israel Council on Foreign Relations. Sandstein 20:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs[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)

Tagged for notability since 2012. Recent talk page discussion resulted in my and User:Randykitty concluding that it seems to have low impact and is not indexed in any major citation indices. Randy observed "MIAR indicates that this is in two databases (Public Affairs Index and Political Science Complete). However, neither is very selective and as you note, the citation record is more than meager, so this fails NJournals". I noted that " The journal uses the obsolete submission system (by email to the editor). Google Scholar shows that their best paper has 61 citations, followed by three more at in the range 20-30, maybe another dozen at 10-20, and rest <10. Microsoft Academic analysis [1] suggest the average citation for their article is 0.5." This publication seems to fail WP:NJOURNAL (and the overall GNG). PS. Some of the content could be merged (and redirected) to the publisher, Israel Council on Foreign Relations, perhaps? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Piotrus has already given my rationale in his nom. No objection to a possible merge and redirect. --Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is the foremost journal on Israeli foreign affairs. Beyond citations in other academic journals, which are not insignificant, items first published by the journal are frequently covered by the media and quoted by the media. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this journal is notable, and the article is good enough to be kept. Sorabino (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorabino, Aha. WP:ITSNOTABLE according to whom? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This journal is created by a notable institution (Israel Council on Foreign Relations) and published by a notable publisher (Routledge/Taylor & Francis). Articles in this journal are authored by notable scholars, and the journal is cited widely in scholarly literature. Assessment that this journal is not notable enough to have an article is not supported by facts. Sorabino (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the journal's citation record is very weak. As for the rest of your arguments, please read WP:NOTINHERITED. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a study that would support your claim that citation record of this journal is "very weak"? Sorabino (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many postdocs have more impressive citation records than this journal. Can you cite any studies that would support your claim that this journal is cited "widely"? --Randykitty (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have just your personal assessment for your claim? My claim is based on Google Scholars data for this journal. Sorabino (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorabino, And how is your claim not a personal assessment? Google Scholar reports numbers. We have discussed those. They are small. Although what matters more for me is the fact that the journal is not indexed in any major citation indices; this is something that is easily measured. Public Affairs Index and Political Science Complete are not major (simple test: redirects). If it is not even in Scopus, is is not really significant. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be nice if "keep" !votes could give a little bit more substance beyond WP:ITSNOTABLE or WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Please indicate which sources provide an in-depth discussion of the journal and how it meets GNG or NJournals. Without a policy-based argumentation, those !votes are likely to be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you set an example, by presenting any source that would support your claims? For a claim that an academic journal, created by a notable institution such as the Israel Council on Foreign Relations, and published by a notable publisher such as Routledge/Taylor & Francis, is not notable enough to have an article, one should present some sources, to back such claim. Sorabino (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorabino, Nope, the responsibility is on the article creator. Please show how this publication meets WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Israel Council on Foreign Relations. Unless Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs article can be expanded with meaningful information, it is too short to be kept next to the article of the organization for which it is such a central activity. This opinion is given without prejudice on notability. It's purely based on principles of information stewardship. gidonb (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a constructive proposal. In principle, if we have an article on certain organization or institution, and also an article on its journal, nominators should always consider the merge as a first option, particularly if notability of the very institution or organization is not questionable. It seems to me that nobody here disputes that the Israel Council on Foreign Relations is a notable institution. Therefore, simple deletion of content related to its journal should not be a favorable option. Sorabino (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the nom explicitly considered this proposed merge. In general, the nom only has an obligation to do a background check to see if there could be a case for notability despite the wekness of the article as it stands, not consider every possible merge target. This is an exemplary nom and the complaint is unfair. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chalst, there is a proper procedure for merge proposals, and also a proper procedure for delete proposals. Those are two very different things. For some reason, by initiating current AfD, this article was proposed for deletion. That was a radical move, but so far it received no substantial support here. Sorabino (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, while merge is the outcome with the strongest support based on !votes, on the merits of the discussion here and that before between Piotrus and Randykitty, either delete or redirect would also be acceptable outcomes. I see no argument for notability made here that does not fall foul of WP:NOTINHERITED and the content of the article as it stands has little value and some puffery. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chalst, if someone wants to merge an article, they propose the merge. Nominator opted for the AfD, thus demonstrating their primary intention to delete this article. That is why we are here, instead on a talk page, where the merge proposal should have occurred. Fortunately, there is no support for this delete proposal. Sorabino (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD debates tend to have a certain inertia to them, where the earlier !votes tend to attract agreement if they are put together well. If the delete rationale had been more forcefully argued earlier on, we might now be in an AfD that favoured redirect or delete over merge. Deletion policy is such that there is a certain amount of ambiguity about best practice with respect to how to handle material/links on articles that we deem non-notable. It is to Piotrus' credit that, while favouring delete, he also pointed out that there might be a merge case to be made. Merge is only definitely preferable over delete/redirect if there is good quality information that we risk losing, and I don't think that is the case here. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Israel Council on Foreign Relations, since it clearly fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Israel Council on Foreign Relations per Gidonb. The article as it stands has attracted a piece of unencyclopediac puffery, 'The journal has been called "one of the best publications in the field" and praised for its quality' by a non-notable journalist, so having an independent article is doing some harm as it stands. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check your facts. The reference in question is pointing to an article published in The Jerusalem Post, a very notable newspaper. The article reports on Jacek Chodorowicz (Polish ambassador in Israel) praising Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs. Here is the quote from that newspaper article: "In his remarks, Chodorowicz warmly praised the ICFR’s Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, which Weinbaum edits, calling it one of the very best publications in the field". Why did you qualify that reporting as "a piece of unencyclopediac puffery"? Sorabino (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've been on Wikipedia long enough that I assume that outside of the adversarial AfD context you would normally see the MOS:PEACOCK and WP:DUE problems with the sentence I cited. My point is that the problem with the sentence would be more likely to be appreciated by the casual reader in the context of an article about a think tank that in one that might be taken to be about a regular academic journal. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:11, 25 March 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.