Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Assyrian Academic 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 delete. There is a clear consensus that this should be deleted. Multiple editors have voted delete knowing there is a potential merge target and any merges material needs sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 16:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC). To expand my explanation, any willingness to merge was clearly a reluctant second choice and the merge argument was championed by a user who chose to point fingers and cast aspertions rather than argue policy therefore getting little weight in the close. That left only DGG arguing credibly against delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Talk page discussion about notability suggests that most editors who analyzed this conclude this article does not meet WP:GNG/WP:NJOURNAL. Merger to its publisher, Assyrian Academic Society, is not going to work as it is likely about to be deleted too can be considered but note it is also subject to an ongoing AfD (Articles for deletion/Assyrian Academic Society). Ping editors who participated in the talk page discussion: User:Randykitty, User:Buidhe, User:Sorabino. At best, maybe this could be transwiki to a site like the https://humanitiesjournals.fandom.com/wiki/Humanities_Journals_Wiki Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Does not meet GNG or NJOURNALS. Not indexed anywhere selective. Either delete or possibly a very selective merge to Assyriology. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Would you consider a temporary hold on this deletion proposal, on two accounts:
 * Discussions on the talk page of that article is still going on, involving several users.
 * Discussion on the proposed deletion of the article Assyrian Academic Society is not yet concluded, and possible solutions for the content of JAAS article are directly dependent on the outcome of that process. Sorabino (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I can't 'put this AfD hold', there is no such system I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , maybe you could withdraw the proposal as a nominator, just for few days, until the question of the article Assyrian Academic Society is resolved? Sorabino (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think this is needed, it is likely this AfD won't close until the other one does first anyway (since the other one is older). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , discussion on the AAS article will continue for several days, and the proposal might be relisted, thus prolonging the discussion. Is it practical to have two parallel processes? Sorabino (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Since they are about different entities, they are not parallel IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , formally those are two separate articles, but they are closely related, since JAAS was launched as a publication under the auspices of AAS. Sorabino (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Here are some useful search results, including those on the previous title: It seems to me that these results are showing quite clearly that the journal in question is widely quoted in scholarly literature and thus notable enough to have an article. I do not see any justification for the proposed deletion. Sorabino (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Books: Search results for "Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies"
 * Google Scholar: Search results for "Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies"
 * Google Books: Search results for the "Journal of the Assyrian Academic Society"
 * Google Scholar: Search results for the "Journal of the Assyrian Academic Society"
 * Search results in the "Comprehensive Bibliography on Syriac Christianity"
 * Cumulative search results on JSTOR
 * , No, what you have are lowset denomination WP:GOOGLEHITS. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. This journal does not meet either GNG or NJournals. That articles from it have received a smattering of citations (see the links directly above) is to be expected and nothing out of the ordinary. If you look at the GScholar hits, the amount of citations would not even be enough to render a single academic notable, let alone a whole journal. MIAR indicates that this journal is not indexed anywhere. I also note that it appears to be moribund as it website is dead. Merging to the society (if that article is kept) is perhaps not appropriate either: given that the Journal of the Assyrian Academic Society continued publishing for several years in parallel with this one indicates that it is a new journal, independent of the society, rather than a continuation off the society journal. --Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you confirm here that you were directly invited by present nominator to get involved in the initial assessment of this article, with both of you having no previous editorial contributions to Assyrian-related themes? You are an administrator, who is not familiar with the field in question, and never used this journal or its articles, but still you accepted the invitation and decided to pass strict judgement with obvious disregard for the factual notability of this article. Sorabino (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Experts from the Center for the Study of Christianity, within the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, decided to enlist 83 (eighty three) articles from this journal into their "Comprehensive Bibliography on Syriac Christianity" as can be seen clearly from their publicly available bibliographical base. That is the position of scholars on this journal, and a clear acknowledgment of its notability. On the other hand, users who are advocating deletion are (for some reason) ignoring such data. In any case, we should also keep in mind that this journal had special significance tor modern Assyrian community, and it was their main academic publication. World renowned experts like Richard N. Frye, Sebastian P. Brock, Simo Parpola, Robert D. Biggs, Geoffrey Khan, Yona Sabar, Estiphan Panoussi and John B. Joseph have been publishing their articles in this journal. But, it seems that some users here, who have no editorial contributions to main field-related articles, such as Assyria and Assyrian people, think differently. Sorabino (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment on selective invitations. It might be interesting to record here that nominator directly invited users  and  to join discussions on notability of this article. The journal in question contains articles on Assyrian themes, and that is well known to editors who contributed to articles from that field, but editorial histories of main field-related articles (Assyria and Assyrian people) clearly show the lack of any contributions from those editors! And yet, after mutual invitations, they are now proposing or supporting deletions of articles on Assyrian Academic Society and the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies. It seems that until these recent developments, there was no interest among those users to edit articles from the primary field that is covered by works published in this journal. Lack of true interest or knowledge is reflected in their erroneous assessments of this journal. Sorabino (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not going into detail into your aspersions. Simply this: since many years I specialize in academic journals in many different fields, from humanities to high-energy physics (see my user page for a large list of related resources)). Several editors know this and from time to time they ask my opinion. Piotrus has done this quite regularly and we have not always agreed, so his invitation to comment was certainly not an attempt to get a like-minded supporter. As for this AfD, I would have come here even if I hadn't been pinged, because I follow all journal-related AfDs, speedy deletions, PROD, drafts, etc (see here). --Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , please respond to my arguments, stated above against deletion. You did not respond to single one of them, because your hasty assessment of this journal is in odds with the actual notability of this journal within the field. Maybe names of prominent authors such as Richard N. Frye, Sebastian P. Brock, Simo Parpola, Robert D. Biggs, Geoffrey Khan, Yona Sabar, Estiphan Panoussi and John B. Joseph do not mean anything to you, as well as the decision of experts from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to enlist 83 (eighty three) articles from this journal into their "Comprehensive Bibliography on Syriac Christianity". Why are you ignoring those arguments? Sorabino (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your arguments indicate a basic misunderstanding of notability. If you have reliable sources that discuss in-depth how the authors that you mention were important for the journal or the other way around, then please provide those. If all that happened was that these people cited an article from this journal in one of their own articles, then that is purely routine. As for the Comprehensive Bibliography, as the title says, that bibliography aims to be comprehensive, hence it is not a selective database in the sense of NJournals. To be as clear as I can be: you have provided not a single argument that makes me change my mind. --Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is now a defdinite prof that you are just trying to mask the fact that your assessment of this journal is wrong. Did you even look at the nature of that bibliography? It is not a simple listing of all articles that are published in various journals, but a comprehensive bibliography of scholarly articles that are relevant to the field. And regarding those prominent authors, their names are very well known within in the field, no artificial justification is needed there. I am very surprised that anyone would publicly claim to be capable of making honest assessments of journals outside their field. A frightening thought: have you been assessing medical journals too? Sorabino (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The operational word here is "comprehensive" (and yes, of course I had a look at that database, very valuable I guess for people in that field, but no contribution to notability). I don't understand what medical journals have to do with the discussion here. I have created articles on medical journals and taken quite a few to AfD, too. Can we now stop discussing my incompetence and concentrate on the issue at hand? --Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , you are the one who started the narrative on your expertise in the field of journal assessments. I do not know what your field of study is, but it seems to me that it is not archeology or any of the other discipline related to history. The very fact that you are publicly demonstrating disregard for the work of experts who created that bibliography speaks volumes. You have no arguments against simple facts: 1.) Those experts recognized this journal as relevant, 2.) They selected 83 articles for the comprehensive bibliography of the defined field, 3.) Those two facts are clear recognition of notability of this journal. But it seems that you simply do not want to acknowledge any relevance to those facts. Haw can you, in all honesty, still claim that this journal is below the standards of notability? Not to mention cultural and social importance of that journal for the Assyrian community. This entire discussion is quite an unfortunate embarrassment. Sorabino (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have tried to explain what makes a journal notable as best as I can. Assessing journals my specialty, like it or not. And now I formally ask you to stop your personal attacks and concentrate on the matter at hand. If you have problems with my incompetence, feel free to take this to WP:ANI or any other noticeboard. I for one am done with your refusal to understand my arguments and incessant accusations. --Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , so we have come to that point? When lacking arguments, the "personal attack" card is pulled. And you are an administrator! You have two choices now, since you accused me publicly on making "personal attacks" against you: If you realy mean that, it would be your duty to report me. If you do not report me, than you are the one making accusations here. Where do we go from here is up to you. Sorabino (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Question for the nominator., for the sake of clarity, can you disclose how did you came to be involved in the assessment of this article, while having no previous editorial contributions to Assyrian-related articles? In the fields of your interest, as defined by your user page and your editorial history, there are several articles with no references or just with some singular references to self-published sources, but you somehow missed such articles. Here are some examples: Polish American Catholic Heritage Committee, or majority of articles in the category Category:Polish-language newspapers published in the United States, that have just one self-published source. For the sake of consistency, would you nominate such articles for deletion? Sorabino (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would, if the review showed they are not notable. Anyway, you should really lay it off, I am all for engaging AfD participants in discussions, but you are starting to come off to me as WP:BADGERING. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I can not make you to disclose the nature of those direct invitations to other users, but I have the right to ask, and that is not "badgering". We are dealing with very simple facts here: you have zero editorial contributions to main articles on Assyrian themes, but suddenly, after recent contacts with user, you became ardently engaged in the proposed deletions of articles Assyrian Academic Society and the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies. So, pardon me for asking. I guess you will also ignore the inclusion of this journal into Hebrew University of Jerusalem bibliographical database, that is mentioned above? Sorabino (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually Piotrus often participates in AfD and makes an effort to delete non-notable topics from Wikipedia. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , what about direct invitations to join discussions on these issues? Did that happened or not? Sorabino (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you feel there's WP:CANVASSING going on (there isn't), please take it up with an uninvolved admin rather than continuing to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , this entire deletion endeavor is already on the edge of integrity, not to mention the fact that neither you or user still haven′t said a word about clear confirmation of this journal′s notability by data presented above. The very fact that all of you are still advocating the most radical solution (complete deletion) is hard to understand. Sorabino (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree with Sorabino that canvassing is taking place... --Randykitty (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , are you really accusing me of "caanvassing" for putting general notices on talk pages of main articles on Assyrian themes, pointing to the need to improve the contents of articles that are proposed for deletion? If that is "canvasing" please report me. Sorabino (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Asking editors on Assyrian subjects to come save notable articles that are threatened by ignorant editors is not canvassing, but asking a specialist on academic journals for their opinion (pro or con), now that is canvassing. And disagreeing with your assertion that this journal is notable suggests an integrity issue. Got it, thanks for educating me. --Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And thus we have reached the highlight of this discussion ... Back to the reality: the claim that this journal is notable enough to have an article is backed by evidence presented above, from numerous quotations in scholarly works, to inclusion into scientific bibliographies, created by academic institutions. On the other hand, the claim that content on this journal should be deleted is based on what? Someones personal ad hoc assessment that all of those previously mentioned data somehow does not count. Sorabino (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Correct information on indexing: Several claims, stated above by some users in relation to this journal, are not factually correct:
 * 1. User stated that "this journal is not indexed anywhere", but data shows that complete indexing was done by researches of the Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz (Germany), as presented within their well-known bibliographical project "Regesta Imperii", where it is stated for this journal: "Status of Indexing: Completely Indexed".
 * 2. User stated, referring to this journal: "Not indexed anywhere selective" but that statement is also incorrect, as shown earlier by pointing to selection of articles (83) from this journal, ad their inclusion in bibliographical database "Comprehensive Bibliography on Syriac Christianity", that was created by researchers of the Center for the Study of Christianity, within the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
 * 3. In order to improve the article, I added some new contents, including data on OCLC identifier (644298677) and LCCN identifier (98647085) for this journal. I also added some referenced data on the nature and significance of this journal.
 * Having all that in mind, I would ask all involved editors to take another look at the article, and other relevant data, that might incline them to reconsider their current positions. Sorabino (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've had another look. Ad 1/ Not a selective index in the sense of NJournals. Ad 2/ As explained several times above, "comprehensive" means "not selective". Ad 3/ OCLC and LCC numbers are routine and do not add anything to notability, nor are the other sources added substantial. Adding a list of notable authors is discouraged by our journal article writing guide and in the absence of sources documenting how these authors were important for the journal or how this journal was important for these authors, that list is just so much names dropping, does not contribute to notability, and if ever the article is kept should be deleted. In short: I see no reason to change my !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , claim on the lack of any indexing has been proven wrong, but it is up to every individual user to accept that fact, or not. Somehow, you are misrepresenting (again) the nature of that bibliography on Syriac Christianity. It is comprehensive only in terms of its subject: the Syriac Christianity. But in relation to this journal and every other academic source used to create it, that bibliography is selective, because it contains selected articles on themes related to Syriac Christianity. That is not hard to understand, and present properly. Can you see some other posiblle solution for the content of this article, except the most radical one (deletion)? Sorabino (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Library of Congress (Washington) has included this journal in their bibliographical list, titled "Assyrian Display Bibliography" (2016) placing the journal among 29 selected titles that are relevant for research in the fields of Aramaic and Syriac language and literature. Also, the Princeton University Library is listing this journal among those that are relevant to the Near Eastern Studies (Near East Collections at Princeton University Library). It seems that examples like these are showing that those institutions are recognising this journal as relevant. Sorabino (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of the University and Research Systems (ANVUR) has classified this journal (under both titles) among selected scientific journals in their annual reporting, since the very beginning of evaluations, up to the newest listings (January 2021). Sorabino (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Are you familiar with the expression "grasping for straws"? ANVUR is not a significant citation index. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , are you still proposing complete deletion of content related to this journal? Sorabino (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Note for the closer. This journal was published by the Assyrian Academic Society. Discussion on that article was today relisted, with three votes to keep and two to delete. Since one of possible solutions for the content of the article on this journal is to merge it with the article on the Assyrian Academic Society, it would seem fair to relist this discussion too, particularly in light of data presented above, related to full indexing and notability. Sorabino (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, more independent participation is needed, since both users who are supporting deletion were directly invited by the present nominator to join the initial discussion on the notability of this journal, and therefore it would be preferable if some additional time is granted here, by relisting this discussion, until the similar AfD process on Assyrian Academic Society is completed. Sorabino (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * once more: comment on the issues, not the editors. I was not canvassed to come here to support someone's position (unlike your own -unsuccessful- requests for like-minded editors to come save this article). Your continuous bludgeoning and posting of walls of text, not to mention your continuous assertions that "notability has been proven" (it hasn't, that's what we are discussing here) are counterproductive and you should not be surprised if other editors (including the closing admin) are going to ignore your unproductive badgering, aspersions, and arguing. --Randykitty (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * that is 100% not true, I did not invite a single user to discuss this article, whether on talk page or here, while you were invited directly by the present nominator. And regarding this discussion, your initial assessment that "this journal is not indexed anywhere" has been proven as factually incorrect (above), but you still did not respond to that! So, you were invited directly, and your statement on indexing is wrong, not to mention other issues on notability, addressed above, but you are still advocating complete deletion of all content related to this notable Assyrian-minority journal? Sorabino (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Significance as a minority journal: Since this journal had double significance, both as academic (English sections) and minority (native literature sections) journal, here is a quote from the USA based Assyrian Arts Institute, on the importance of this publication as a minority journal: "Through journals such as Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Assyrian writers and poets have the opportunity to channel their voice and share their thoughts and achievements with the world" (see: Assyrian Art Institute: Who are the Assyrians?). Sorabino (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS. Could be merge at Assyrian Academic Society if that one is kept. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , merge would be a good solution, but that would depend on the outcome of AfD for the Assyrian Academic Society, that will be known in few days, but this AfD (on the journal) might closed today, if it is not relisted. Please, could you clarify what would be your preferable choice for content on the journal: complete deletion, or merge to Assyrian Academic Society? Sorabino (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Endangered language: This journal was a bilingual publication, with double significance, both as academic journal (English sections) and a literary journal (native sections, with linguistic and literary contents published in various forms of Aramaic/Syriac). Since Assyrian Neo-Aramaic language, as well as other Neo-Aramaic languages are considered as endangered languages, under UNESCO classification (see: List of endangered languages in Asia), it would be improper to disregard the significance of this journal for preservation of those languages. Sorabino (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * potential merge--postpone deletion because thearticle on the society look like it will at worst be a non-consensus.  DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 21 March 2021 (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.