Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic and Environmental 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   merged to Opole University. --MuZemike 21:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Economic and Environmental Studies

 * – ( View AfD View log )

university journal of no independent note. No assertion of passing - Notability (academic journals) Youreallycan (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep To my opinion, as author, it is a noteworthy academic journal. On a Google test it scores more then 42 thousand hits (keywords: "Economic and Environmental Studies" and Opole). I have to admit that the sourcing is weak and based on 1 source. I think that there are more interesting sources, but I am unable to understand Polish and other East-European languages. As a Polish magazin with a focus on Eastern Europe, it isn't exactly mainstream. Stil it is mentioned 41 times on Google Scholar. To my opinion noteworthy enough to keep. Night of the Big Wind  talk  01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 *  Delete Merge(see comment below), reluctantly. Although it has been around for 11 years, it apparently is still not listed in any major selective database. That it is published in Poland does not mean that sources would necessarily have to be in Polish: it's an academic journal in English, the editorial board is international, and authors are not exclusively Polish. Having said that, even though this is not my field, when I browse through the online issues, I definitely get a feel of a third-tier journal. The 41 references on GScholar mentioned by NotBW above are confirmation of this, for an journal with an 11 year history, this kind of citation record is abysmal. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a good time to make use of the Wikipedia policy of Ignore All Rules, which states: "If a rule [links to: policies and guidelines] prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Juried academic journals are regarded as the epitome of "reliable sources" at Wikipedia. If information in this journal is used to support a fact in a Wikipedia piece, some (although not all) editors will add a link to the publication in the footnotes or references section. In what possible way would it be better to have this showing as a redlink rather linking to even this little stub which informs the questioning user that this is a juried academic journal, published here by those guys there?!? It simply wouldn't. Notability guidelines help us to resolve what subjects are significant and what are not, but they are not perfect. This is a case where the Wikipedia policy should trump the Wikipedia guideline — Wikipedia is stronger with the article than without for a very logical reason. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * comment in response to this "ignore all rules" keep vote - There are no links to this journal from this project to this journal apart from the single one that is in this article. Your comments about "information in this journal is used to support a fact in a Wikipedia piece" - has no basis in facts at all and actually asserts a lack of notability reflected in its absolute lack of use on the project. Youreallycan (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. No article, no links. No links, no article. Night of the Big Wind  talk  22:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could somebody please tell me since when the number of wikilinks has been an argument of even limited validity in any AfD? And as far as IAR goes: there's this cute website that I recently made. We call it the Journal of Important Science. I have several friends in faculty positions in several countries that are on the editorial board. We published a few articles and several board members, who are WP editors, have inserted theses as references in several WP articles. Does that now mean that our journal should get a WP article? Not saying something like this scenario is going on here;, just that we're on a sliding slope. As an aside, those 42K GHits reduce to 185 if you take the time to browse to the end of them. If you add "-wikipedia", 133 are left, with "-facebook" we're down to 129. Which ones constitute significant coverage? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Needs improved but on basis of search Keep. Edinburgh   Wanderer  00:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please post the results of your search that support your keep position. Youreallycan (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Somehow the policy of IAR gets trumped by the (lesser level law) guideline of GNG nine times out of ten at AfD, so in anticipation of the worst I will propose another potentially okay outcome: merger with a redirect to Opole University, which already includes an (empty) section on the journal. Then links to the journal would still get people to the basic information which they are seeking without anyone's love of Rules and Order being offended... Carrite (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've went ahead and made the merge already. A redirect would be fine with me. Carrite (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to merge in edit history, if anyone has the skills, that would be good to do, assuming it is possible. I just smushed in the content and tweaked it a little. Carrite (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I think a merge is an excellent solution and am kicking myself for not having thought of this myself. Admins can perform history merges, so the closing admin is hereby kindly requested to take care of this if, as i hope, merge is going to be the outcome here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to a merge. Youreallycan (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have acquaintances on all three sides of the aisle, and have but little to offer argument-wise here. I have a tendency to trust Guillaume's judgment in these matters and barring any further evidence will support their merge arguments. I'll be happy to carry out the history merge when it comes to that (although it's time that Guillaume gets a mop so he can do it himself). I found no further evidence to establish notability. A Google Book search reveals no citations for articles from the journals, but that search is made more difficult given the generality of the phrase and I didn't go through more than four or five pages. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect Content has already been merged, redirect to Opole University. Pol430  talk to me 17:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would regret a merge, but not reject, mainly because of the lack of articles about science in Eastern Europe. The existing rules are based on science in the USA and, I guess unwillingly, provide a different threshold between the Western World and the rest of the world. It would be nice if someone could take a look at that, but for the moment I have to accept things as they be. Night of the Big Wind  talk  17:15, 1 January 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.