Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central European Journal of International and Security Studies


 * 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   keep. Weak consensus to keep: a poorly "popularized" journal, but existent, and potentially important to the region as a whole ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Central European Journal of International and Security Studies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable journal. No independent sources (except a mention in a non-notable newsletter and an unclear link from the ETH in Zurich). Not indexed in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Notable journal. If Guillaume2303 would stop deleting all the information as soon as it were up then the journal's notability would be visible. In the Czech Republic this is the most important academic journal in English and although the current Wiki page does not reflect the importance of the journal, perhaps Guillaume2303 should help by reviewing CEJISS's contents rather than deleting information. CEJISS is a peer-reviewed open access journal. Guillaume2303's focus on "major databases" defeats the purpose of open access. CEJISS is not listed on the Web of Knowledge. Does this mean it is not a quality journal? Open access is the future, it is the spirit behind CEJISS. Any quick google search of CEJISS on google will reveal the impact it is having without needing an impact factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katuska1977 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC) — Katuska1977 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Please note that "notability" in the Wikipedia sense has nothing whatsoever to do with "quality", "good" or "bad". It simply means that in order to have an article, a subject should have been "noted", as evidenced by independent reliable sources. We are not here to judge whether this is a quality journal or not. Only whether there are sufficient independent sources to establish notability according to WP:NJournals or WP:GNG and to verify the information in the article. I have edited the article for readability and redundancy and for compliance with the writing guide for journal articles. No information that could possibly establish notability has been removed during those edits, as far as I can see, but you are free to present any evidence of notability here and, if valid, we will incorporate it in the article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment 1. CEJISS is an open source journal offering open source research articles, maps, econtributions. It no longer has podcasts. 2. It is highly cited, in major publishers for its book reviews. 3. the German knowledge base GESIS (http://www.gesis.org/knowledgebase/journals/index.asp?stock=journals&select=Czech%20Republic&slice=1&q=20346) lists it. 4. EBSCO lists it (http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/tsh-subject.pdf) 5. CEJISS has 13 very important partners (http://cejiss.org/counterparts) including the ISN. 6. Many author's and Editorial Board members of CEJISS are notable in Europe and the US (such as Benjamin R. Barber and Javaid Rehman)(http://cejiss.org/board/editorial/). 7. The founder and editor in chief, Mitchell Belfer,is widely published in the international press (see for instance: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204612504576608852457881450.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katuska1977 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1/ This is immaterial to notability. 2/ What does "highly cited" mean and is there any evidence for this? 3/ As far as I can see, this is not a selective database and inclusion does not contribute to notability. 4/ EBSCO is not very selective and insufficient for establishing notability. 5/ Notability is not inherited. 6/ As 5. 7/ As 5. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do all the changes I make get marked as vandalism? Why was the uploaded logo of CEJISS removed and reverted to the old one? If you were truly interested in refining rather than removing this entry a simple google and/or google scholar search would have showed you its notability. However, each change that is done to bring this article up-to-par is deleted!? Why!? In terms of notations, I clearly do not have the time to highlight all of them however, see for instance: 1. James Machaffie, China's Role in Central Asia: Security Implications for Russia and the United States, Comparative Strategy, 29:4, 2010, pp. 368-380, 2. Nikolaos Lavranos, National Courts, Domestic Democracy, and the Evolution of International Law: A Reply to Eyal Benvenisti and George Downs, European Journal of International Law, 20:4, 2009, pp. 1005-1011, 3. Peter Lehr, Somali Piracy: The Next Iteration, Perspectives on Terrorism, 3:4, 2009. The list goes on and on. So, if CEJISS does not appear on "selective" lists then it is not worthy of a WP article because it is not notable enough? It has clearly contributed to untold IR and Security-related debates and I think that if you would spend as much time in support of such start-up journals and did the research to find its notability instead of undermining it you would agree. I have now tried three times to make alterations to the WP page. Each time it reverted and said that I was vandalising. I will not try again. If you are this set on deleting the page just do it instead of having this debate. I am not the only person who has tried to keep the page up and functioning. It is clear that you have already made your choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katuska1977 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the changes you tried to make and am puzzled why the bot marked them as vandalism. They're trivial, but not vandalism. You should perhaps contact the bot owner, this seems to be a false positive. I have reverted the logo/cover, because (as I said in the edit summary), the logo is copyrighted and has no valid license on Commons (in fact, as it is copyrighted, it cannot have a valid license on Commons) and sooner or later it will be deleted there. This would leave the article without any image at all, so I put back the cover image, which is correctly uploaded here at en:WP under fair use. In any case, no decision about deletion has been made and we're certainly willing here to be convinced. I'm not sure what the articles you mention are purported to show, but I guess that they cite articles from CEJISS. I'm afraid that is far from being enough to pass our notability guidelines. For individual scholars, we usually require at a minimum hundreds (in some fields thousands) of citations before they are regarded as being notable. A journal, of course, needs a bit more than one single scholar. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * weak Keep I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt for journals published from countries such as Czechoslovakia, which tend to get very poor coverage in the standard databases,. it's published by a respectable university, hand has existed since 2007. It seems to be held by a number of important European and American  academic libraries as well a a number of CUNY which seem to be including it simply as an OA journal, a rather dubious policy.   DGG ( talk ) 08:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Those links don't work for me, but in any case, given that this is an OA journal (the article erroneously stated "Hybrid OA"), I don't think it is very significant if libraries carry it, it's not like it costs them anything to link to it. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. Beagel (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this belongs on Wikipedia even though it doesn't seem to fit the conventional criteria. First, in the conventional sense I think being listed by EBSCO is helpful for a "Keep". Unconventionally, it appears that this journal has a signifigant impact in its area of coverage because it attracts readership consisting of "45,000 people in nearly 160 countries" . This means it has broad coverage with international signfigance. As noted by User: Katuska1977 the journal's partners add to its signifigance. Furthermore, this appears to be a scholarly and professional publisher with well researched articles . Moreover, I think its listing in German knowledge base GESIS is also helpful. Also, as DGG noted it has been in existence since 2007 (with about two issue per year ) and published by a respectable University. In addition, I will take DGG's word of experience that journals published in such countries are poorly covered in standard databases. Overall, I think this journal is probably considered to be reputable internationally. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Steve, I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. There is no independent source for those readership figures (if those figures really were that high, I would have expected some non-trivial independent sources about such a popular site). Having notable partners does not make oneself notable. GESIS is not very selective in its coverage, nor is EBSCO. And whether or not they produce good issues/articles is a completely different issue from whether this is notable or not. DGG may be right that journals from countries like the Czech Republic are poorly covered (I'm less sure than you that he's actually right), but that is basically saying that we're going to have different criteria for subjects depending on their geographical origin, which I don't think is a good policy. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.