Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Iranian Archaeology


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Journal of Iranian Archaeology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Conditional merge to Wahesht Mina International Institute (publisher) if somebody can create that article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This appears to be a rather new academic journal. We should assume that it is a serious journal until proved otherwise.  If it is such, it should be notable.  I agree that the present article is a poor one.  In view of the sanctions against Iran and its recentness, its failure to appear in citation indices and the like is perhpas not surprising.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment That's an interesting reasoning: so for any new journal you want us to assume that it is "serious" and that then makes it notable?? I know a lot of journals that are going to be very happy if WP would accept that as policy... And I don't think that sanctions have anything to do with indexing. Indexing, after all, does not entail forking over cash, which is what sanctions are about. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - we do not keep most new journals; the contrary is probably closer to standard practice. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Wahesht Mina International Institute (or similar) or Delete. There is likely to some notability here, but it's not with the journal. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep as an exception, to avoid systematic bias for this rarely covered field. This is almost the only sort of journal where I differ from Guillaume2303 -- new or minor journals in the traditional humanities especially from other than the major publishing countries. The merge suggestion would be appropriate also.  DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggested new merge targets Fereidoun Biglari is the journals' editor and appears to be Head of the Paleolithic Department of the National Museum of Iran. Either the editor or the institution would be suitable merge targets. Fereidoun Biglari doesn't have overwhelming google scholar rank (my default measure of notability for academics in fields I'm unfamiliar with), which makes me wary of him. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Bearian, above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability at all. If this actually is a new legitimate journal, then WP:TOOSOON applies. However, I'm skeptical as it is not indexed anywhere. The keep !votes above are based entirely on special pleading. Without reliable sourcing, there isn't anything that can be merged. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  16:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This journal has not yet clearly established notability. If it achieves notability in the future, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:10, 22 November 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.