Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Ankara 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 redirect to Koç University. There's less discussion that I'd like of Umimak's sources; NJOURNALS doesn't need to be met if GNG is. However, absent any other support for this argument, there's clearly current consensus against a standalone article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Journal of Ankara Studies

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal. Not  independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODed without reason given, but with the addition of abstracting/indexing info. However, none of the databases added are selective in the sense of NJournals, so PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Turkey. Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You can see on the Journal's webpage that the Journal is indexed by several databases: https://ankaradergisi.org/eng/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levo3506 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I mentioned that the journal is included in those databses, but unfortunately they are not selective enough to contribute to notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment what is their impact factor? That would help determine notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: The journal is not included in any Clarivate database, so it has no impact factor either. --Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep journal is reviewed in and in  It also appears in Claybaugh's 2019 A Research Guide to Southeastern Europe: Print and Electronic Sources and in EBSCO's The Belt and Road Initiative Reference Source. Umimmak (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC) update: clarify position Umimmak (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment for people arguing delete, I’d like a response especially to the review, that seems significant. Also what counts as a database; why does Index Islamicus not count? Umimmak (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to be too small to warrant inclusion here on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What seems too small? The two page review? Index Islamicus? Umimmak (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The journal is too "small/unimportant" to have gained critical attention. It's not the New England Journal of Medicine. It's a peer-reviewed journal for a small university with a limited distribution, lacking critical attention from the educational community at large. The fact that it's not indexed anywhere and has no h-factor is a good indication of how minor the journal is. Not to say it's unimportant, but doesn't qualify for coverage here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment also WP:NJOURNALS says For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. I just want to make sure we're not applying STEM journal standards to non-STEM journals. It continues: In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries when evaluating whether C2 is satisfied. This is an open-access, online journal, so libraries don't really "hold" them in their collections, but many library catalogues still include them, including: Brown, Claremont Colleges, Delaware, Duke, GWU, Harvard, Notre Dame, St. And, Stanford, UAlberta, UCL, UMD, and UQAM as an arbitrary sampling. Also note Data on library holdings need to be interpreted in the light of what can be expected for the specific subject. Umimmak (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This journal is not indexed in any selective database. It fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS. Nanosci (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I also think that what counts database needs to be clarified and kindly ask for this clarification. --Basak (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: We call a database selective if it includes only journals that have passed a quality assessment. Most databases only select for topic, but try to include everything within that particulate topic. The DOAJ, for example, aims to include every OA journal, with obviously fraudulent journals excepted. Hope this clarifies. --Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete If it has no impact factor and isn't indexed, it seems a clear case for deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Could perhaps redirect or merge to the university, that seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the suggestion of a Redirect or Merge (and to what target). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Umimmak (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Umimmak (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete fails WP:N. Could be merged to the university page however. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:19, 5 January 2023 (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.