Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medieval Worlds


 * 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 merge to Austrian Academy of Sciences. Note: this may end up being a selective merge. There's a suggestion that the lead and "History and significance" sections are the best bits for merging, but I'll leave that up to whoever does the actual merge. The key point is to only merge material which is adequately sourced.

None of the people who argued for a merge sounded 100% sure that Austrian Academy of Sciences was the best marge target. If a better target emerges, please discuss on the talk pages and ping the discussants from this AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Medieval Worlds

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reason "This journal is indexed in databases which only accept high quality peer-reviewed publications and which have strict admission criteria to ensure this (ERIH Plus, DOAJ). A number of the most distinguished scholars in the field of Medieval Studies have already published articles in this journal and the journal‘s contribution to the scholarly discussion is widely recognised: https://merovingianworld.wordpress.com/2018/11/30/open-access-the-global-eminent-life". However, none of the databases listed are selective in the sense of WP:NJournals (e.g., DOAJ is only "selective" in the sense that it does not include predatory journals). That some of the authors are notable is irrelevant (WP:NOTINHERITED). The link provided is to a WordPress blog by a person who has published in this journal. The article has a deceptively long list of "references", most of which are to the journal itself and the rest are the above-mentioned blog and non-selective indexing services. Journal was started in 2015, so at best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge? I agree this isn't notable, but... Austrian Academy of Sciences might be a merge target. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The references to the journal itself are only used to verify the issue themes mentioned, the references to the indexing services are only used to verify that the journal is indeed indexed in these databases. The references in the main text, however, which gives "routine, uncontroversial details of a journal" are from "official institutional and professional sources" (as demanded by WP:NCriteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals). Namely 1) a reference to the publishing institute to verify the statement of ownership, 2) one reference to the Austrian Research Funding Agency (FWF), which reviewed and monitored the journal in its first three publishing years, to verify the scope of the journal, 3) two references to the Austrian Research Funding Agency to verify the statement that the journal was launched with initial funding of said agency, 4) a reference to a professional journal dedicated to news and information about Medieval Studies to verify the statement when the journal was launched. Kunstförderer(T) 12:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That may all be true, but nothing of that is evidence of notability, either by meeting WP:NJournals or by meeting WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As Randykitty said, the issue here is not WP:V, but rather WP:N. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The journal may meet these criteria for notability from WP:JOURNALCRIT:


 * Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
 * Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.


 * Re criterion 1, I note that:
 * The journal is cited as an example of historiographically significant attempts to challenge chronological and geographical boundaries in historical study: Stuart Airlie, Maud Anne Bracke and Rosemary Elliot, 'Editorial', Gender & History, 28 (2016), 275-82 (p. 281, fn. 19).
 * The journal is cited as evidence that 'wide-ranging comparison on a Eurasian scale has become a hot topic in Medieval Studies': Walter Pohl, 'Introduction: Meanings of Community in Medieval Eurasia', in Meanings of Community across Medieval Eurasia: Comparative Approaches, ed. by Eirik Hovden, Christina Lutter and Walter Pohl (Leiden: Brill, 2016), pp. 1-23 (pp. 1-2); https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w76w6c.5.
 * Issue 4 is reviewed in Alfons Labisch, 'Molecular Historiography–neue Gegenstände und neue Methoden einer neuen Geschichtsschreibung?', NTM: Zeitschrift Für Geschichte Der Wissenschaften, Technik Und Medizin, 26(3), 351–366;.
 * The journal is presented as evidence that 'there are new and lively initiatives which speak either directly or indirectly to the notion of a global history for the millennium before 1500': Catherine Holmes and Naomi Standen, 'Introduction: Towards a Global Middle Ages', Past & Present, 238, Issue suppl. 13 (1 November 2018), 1–44,.
 * Given how seldom journals are the subject of academic commentary per se, this isn't a bad set of citations to my mind.
 * Re criterion 2, I looked up some of the journal's early articles on Google Scholar and several have 4-6 citations; that may not sound like much in some fields, but in history, that's good going. I did some similar searches of articles from Past & Present from the same year and they aren't cited much more frequently, and Past & Present is certainly a major journal. Alarichall (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Past & Present is also indexed in several selective database, and has a history of 70+ years. This is a relatively new journal, indexed nowhere selective. Quite likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, but see also WP:CRYSTALBALL. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Thanks for the reply! I'm not trying to suggest that this journal is notable for the same reasons as Past & Present. I was just trying to get a benchmark for what 'frequently cited' looks like in this journal's field, in relation to notability criterion 2. I still think it meets the stated criteria. The citations I gathered for criterion 1 suggest that the foundation of the journal is a singificant step in a new historiographical development in medieval studies, so that particular claim to notability doesn't have much to do with the journal's longevity. I'll try popping a bit more prose into the entry to spell out how this might work. Alarichall (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added the following to the article, hopefully helping explain how the article meets Criterion 1 (and also generally widening the source-base of the article):
 * Scholarly commentators have found the journal noteworthy for its programmatic efforts to change the parameters of Medieval Studies, making the field less Eurocentric and attempting to integrate it into comparative history, world history, and interdisciplinary history-writing. They noted that it was promoting a new trend for 'wide-ranging comparison on a Eurasian scale' and numbered it among 'new and lively initiatives which speak either directly or indirectly to the notion of a global history for the millennium before 1500'. The journal's push for a new interdisciplinarity was particularly noted in a review of its fourth issue, on the historiographical consequences of archaeogenetic research.
 * Alarichall (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I appreciate your efforts, but I am afraid that none of the sources that you list show real notability. At least one is not independent (Pohl is one of the editors) and all are in fact what we call "in-passing mentions". None is an in-depth analysis of this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your point, though frankly I don't see that the encyclopaedia stands to gain much from deleting this article (and others like it) either. So what's your objection re criterion 2? The journal is frequently cited by reliable sources. Ta! Alarichall (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Re #2: a smathering of citations is to be expected for any journal and is in and of itself not an indication of notability. This kind of citation data would not even be enough to make a single academic notable, let alone a whole journal. As for what the encyclopedia gains, that's not really a matter to be discussed here. Suffice it to say that that argument goes for any article not meeting our notability requirements (I could write an article about my cleaning lady, what's the harm for leaving that float around...) More seriously, there are journals that really should not be listed anywhere. To keep those out, we need clear and objective inclusion criteria. Which we then have to apply to all journals, to avoid a situation where editors like us have to make a subjective judgment about whether or not a particular journal is worthy of inclusion or not. --Randykitty (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge I think the sourcing is a bit shy of establishing stand-alone notability, but as Headbomb noted above, Austrian Academy of Sciences is a viable merge target. The lead and the "History and significance" section could be slotted in there, making a new section called "Publications". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge per nomination, preferably to the article on Austrian Academy of Sciences, whatever is adequately sourced. A case of zu früh. -The Gnome (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2018 (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.