Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean


 * 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 Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw.  Sandstein  15:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". DePRODded with reason "Translation of a plwiki article, should probably at least be discussed at AfD." I don't know the notability criteria of the Polish WP and in any case, those are immaterial here. PROD reson stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete : I couldn't find any source that discusses the significance or impact of this publication. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  12:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to merge, as some content has been referenced now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find any evidence of notability for this journal, and the article is currently sourced entirely to primary sources. I was going to suggest a merge or redirect to Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw, but that article is also sourced entirely to primary coverage and has unclear notability too. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merging to Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw would be preferable to deletion. No opinion on deletion for now. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * merge into parent article is the standard solution in such cases. Valid information, even if does not warrant a separate page. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, merging is often the standard solution in these cases. I dislike that solution (here and elsewhere), however, because the only source we have is the journal itself. --Randykitty (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If the only thing the source is being used for is to say that this journal exists and is affiliated with that institution, why would that be a problem? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does it stop? Are we going to include lists of everything that the journal/institution mention on their websites? We don't do this for other things either, so why make an exception for journals? Also, this is inconsistent with our practice for other journals. We don't merge al OMICS journals to OMICS Publishing Group, even though the journal exists and is affiliated with that publisher. You may say: "hey, but those are predatory journals". Yes, in the case of OMICS that's pretty clear, but how about other publishers/journals? Are we, WP editors, going to install ourselves as judges on what information lacking independent sources should be included and what can only be covered if we have those independent sources? I'm all for making it easier for academic journals to get covered, that's why we have NJournals. But if something even misses that low bar, we shouldn't cover it. --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability guidelines (including the insistence on independent sources) do not apply to content within articles. Whether or not to include a journal in the article of its publisher is simply a matter of editorial judgement based on due weight. For a large publisher (legitimate or not), obviously it doesn't make sense to list the thousands of journals they publish. For a small scientific institute that publishes one or two, it probably does. I am not sure why the non-independence of the source would be relevant, unless there is some legitimate reason for thinking that the PCMA would not be a reliable source on what the PCMA publishes? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw. It's pretty hard to gauge the notability of such a niche periodical, but I'm not seeing any of the usual indicators like indexing by selective databases either. But merging to the organisation that publishes it is an obvious alternative to deletion in this case, since the article content is encyclopaedic and verifiable. The notability of the merge target isn't something to be discussed in this AfD. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Related discussion: Articles for deletion/Studia Palmyreńskie. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment On the publisher's website you can read that although the journal is associated with the Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology it publish the research of all researches and that all articles are subject to a "double-blind reviewing process" by independent experts, which ensures the journal's independence from the institution. I checked that journal articles are cited e.g. in the Scopus database (216 citations in journals indexed in Scopus. The journal is indexed in Index Copernicus, Central and Eastern European Online Library and BazHum.Aszu23 (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, but none of that makes its notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:29, 26 November 2020 (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.