Talk:PRAXIS: The Fletcher Journal of Human Security

Notability
This article has been flagged as requiring proof of notability. It does seems that the journal is not famous amongst the general public publications, however it is quoted and used within its niche field of research, in both organizations working on human development & security, and scholarly publications. Here is a quick list:


 * Asia-Pacific Programme of Education for All (APPEAL) - General Documents on the Human Rights-Based Approach". UNESCO Bangkok. Retrieved Jan 30, 2014.
 * "Understanding human security - Human security institutions". Chicago: World Engagement Institute. Retrieved Jan 30, 2014.
 * Getaneh Gobezie (20-23 September 2011). "Expert Group Meeting - Enabling rural women’s economic empowerment: institutions, opportunities and participation". Empowerment of Women and Gender Mainstreaming in Rural Microfinance (EGM/RW/2011/RP.2 ed.). Accra, Ghana: United Nations Women in cooperation with FAO, IFAD and WFP. Retrieved January 30, 2014.
 * From the Right to Development to the Rights-Based Approach: How 'Human Rights' Entered Development, Peter Uvin, Development in Practice, Vol. 17, No. 4/5
 * Journal of Human Rights Law & Practice, Volume 3, Civil Liberties Organisation, 1993
 * Urban research in Nigeria, Adepoju G. Onibokun, A. Faniran, Institut français de recherche en Afrique
 * Today's Russia in Transition: A First Economic and Political Balance Sheet, Curt Walter Gasteyger, Programme for Strategic and International Security Studies, Graduate Institute of International Studies, 1994

(talk) user:Al83tito 17:50, 31 Jan 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes 7 citations. That is woefully little for an academic journal (a search on Google Scholar confirms this. Please see Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand... What do you recommend? To request deletion of the article, or to keep it? I was still doing research on it, but I'd like to make sure that I am doing things right, and that my work can be fruitful and not deleted. After publishing this stub, I dug some more and the journal has had several titles during its history. PRAXIS: Perspectives on Development and Change (1981-1985, 1989), PRAXIS: a journal of development studies(1987-1988, 1990-1992), PRAXIS: The Fletcher School Journal of Development Studies(1993-2002),PRAXIS: The Fletcher Journal of International Development (2003-2004).It has been hard for me to find good search results, because the word PRAXIS is so used in so many contexts. Nevertheless I did find significant citations, I thought. I was about to write a brief history section talking about the iteration of titles. I could cite the journal itself as a source of neutral information (My understanding is that wiki guidelines allow for non-controversial info to be sourced from primary sources), and/or cite works that have cited the journal in its past titles. It would be significant work for me, so first I'd like to check with you if you approve. Also within that history section I could add the names of the foundational editors, which seems to be recommended by the guidelines. What do you reckon? (talk) user:Al83tito 18:21, 31 Jan 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, what you propose is worthwhile, provided that notability can be shown. The journal can indeed be used for uncontroversial info about itself, but not for establishing notability. For that you need either good sources that discuss the journal in depth, not just in passing, so that the article passes WP:GNG. For most journals this is usually quite hard, because it is not that often that a journal itself is covered, as opposed to something that the journal has published. WP:NJournals is a way to bypass GNG. For that, you need to show that it is included in selective, major indexes in its field. For example Scopus or the Social Sciences Citation Index, but some less important databases than those two may also suffice. So I would concentrate first on showing notability and if that can be done, start fleshing the article out. Doing it the other way around risks doing work that later might get deleted. I'm a bit busy right now myself, so I cannot provide much assistance with editing, but don't hesitate to ask if you need some advice. --Randykitty (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * These are some further results, after doing some more research aimed at verifying notability of this journal. Wikipedia's guidelines for Journals notability states that notability can be established by meeting any one of three criteria: 1)The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. 2)The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. 3) The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history.


 * The results below may indicate a fulfillment of criterium 1. The Journal is recommended/used by practicioners and policy makers, like: UNESCO's "Asia-Pacific Programme of Education for All, and specialized thinktanks/NGOs like World Engagement Institute, and like Policy Innovations. It seems to be a member of Andrew Carnegie Council for ethics in international affairs' Global Ethics Network. It is used as source also among practitioners and academia, which is  the crossroads of where I think the journal intends to be. The journal has had several title modifications in its history, making it more time-consuming to find results. However, here is a Google Scholar yielding the following result for: Praxis: The Fletcher Journal, where it can be seen as cited by scholars of its field. Some of the sources/journals citing this journal are: IDS Bulletin - Institute of Development Studies, Development in Practice,  The International Journal of Human Rights. One specific result of its influence in human development policy making, for those unfamiliar with the field, is its use in this joint report from UN, FAO, IFAD and WFP. A Google Books search also yields some results, with my first hit being "Encyclopedia of Human Rights", which includes the journal in its bibliography.


 * In sum, the journal is within a niche field of experts, however, it seems it is respected and influential within that community. (talk) user:Al83tito 21:55, 5 Feb 2014 (UTC)

Closely associated sources preventing verifiability
Notability guidelines state that "For the routine, uncontroversial details of a journal, official institutional and professional sources are accepted.". The wiki article, especially after being polished by Randykitty, only contains very neutral information. That information does derive from sources close to the subject of the article, but it seems that the guidelines do approve of that. That is why I suggest that the last bulletpoint in the tag at the top of the article, could be removed.(talk) user:Al83tito 16:28, 12 Sep 2015 (UTC)