Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prague Papers on the History of International Relations


 * 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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  11:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Prague Papers on the History of International Relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator without reason given, after adding that journal has notable persons on editorial board (WP:NOTINHERITED) and is included on the "list of reviewed non-impacted journals published in the Czech Republic" (not selective in the sense of NJournals). PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As historian, I know the journal quite well. It is a well known history journal of an institute of one of the most important world university. You can find it, among the others, in the Infona portal (administered by the Interdisciplinary Centre of Computational and Mathematical Modelling of the University of Warsaw): and the European Reference Index for the Humanities (Norwegian Centre for Research Data) ... Mts-Lisboa (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Neither of those indices is selective in the sense of NJournals. But if the journal is this important, it should be possible to find independent reliable sources for that. --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * R: "A journal can be considered notable if it can be demonstrated to have significant coverage in the media, or demonstrated to have a significant impact in its field. This is usually verified through the journal's inclusion in selective bibliographic databases and selective indexing and abstracting services, or by being the subject of significant commentary in independent scholarly publications, news media, books, theses, and other sources."Notability (academic journals). The journal is indexed in the ERIH PLUS, a selective index of the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (agency owned by the Ministry of Education and Research of Norway). In addition to this index, I think that the Czech index can be considered at the same level because of this (although I don't know Czech, you could read it through google translator). Maybe some Czech friends and colleagues could help us. Greetings, Mts-Lisboa (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just added: Since January 7, 2015 the journal has been indexed in the Academic Search Complete (EBSCO Information Services)(although I don't know exactly how this particular index works... I know the previous one...). P.S. sometimes the journal is found as "Prague Papers on History of International Relations" and not as "Prague Papers on the History of International Relations" (the latter is the correct one, but very often you can find it indicated in bibliographies with the other form). Mts-Lisboa (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but none of those indexes is very selective, they all try to cover everything within their remit. ERIH really just has a minimal list of requirements designed to keep out predatory journals. When checking databases for inclusion, it generally is best to use just a distinctive word from the title (e.g., "Prague" in this case) and go through the list of results and/or to use the ISSN. --Randykitty (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix   "Message Me"  06:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- peer-reviewed and published by a university press. As an RS, the article is justified. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Question. Could you perhaps point me to the guideline that says that being peer-reviewed, or published by a minor university press, or being an RS makes a publication notable (in the complete absence of any independent reliable sources)? --Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The main issue I have with making a strong call here (being an RS / published by a University press counts for diddly squat) is that prior for 1997–2010 it was published as a series of books. It also appears 8000 times in google, 3000 times in Googlebooks, which makes me think this is a pass of WP:NJOURNALS at least. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: see supra. Mts-Lisboa (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "published by a minor university press"? Nothing of the sort. Charles University is the leading university in the country, albeit small. --CityCat (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, nobody ever said (least of all me) that Charles University is minor, as it is indeed one of the major universities in Europe. But CU Press is something else and definitely "minor". --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is it smth else? I mean CU Press is notable if only because this university itself is notable (just as Oxford University Press in Great Britain or Harvard University Press in the USA). Of course, CU Press is a small publishing house just because the Czech Republic is a very small country. But this doesn't undermine its WP:Notability. I see you're an expert in the field of academic journals. And yet I can't agree that CU Press is "minor" in the sense that it isn't notable. --CityCat (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the press is not notable because the university is. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. Not every professor or lecturer at CU is notable because the university is, either. CU Press may very well meet WP:GNG (and hence be notable), but that doesn't take away that in the field of academic publishing it is a very minor player. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The point raised by is related, I think, to the adjective "minor". A publishing house can be "small", but not necessarily "minor". If a publishing house of one of the most important universities in the world is "minor", how do we call a local publishing house that publishes few books by local writers? As pointed by CityCat small doesn't mean minor. The (small) publishing house of a glorious university has the full dignity of any other "big" publishing houses of another glorious university. Mts-Lisboa (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources that back up that this is an important publishing house, fine. If not, I respectfully disagree. Notability is not inherited. --Randykitty (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Probably keep -- It is useful to have articles on peer-reviewed academic journals. The problem is usually with providing sources on it that are independent of it.  However peer-review ensures that it should qualify as a WP RS and citation indices should demonstrated that other academics this this is its status.  Nevertheless, this is an area where WP guidelines as to independent sources do not work well.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , every predatory journal claims to be peer-reviewed. We check that by looking, for example, at inclusion in selective databases that actually investigate the quality of this peer-review. We do not take a journal's own words for this, not even if they're published by a university press. And using the recommendations in NJournals, we often succeed in finding sources (see this for example, and that journal did so badly that it folded after 10 years...). --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "every predatory journal claims to be peer-reviewed": but this is not a predatory journal, so in our discussion we should consider it as a real peer-reviewed journal. Best, Mts-Lisboa (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say this is a predatory journal. I'm just saying that it is not up to us to decide which journal is notable and which isn't based on our personal preferences (or the journal's own website). Instead, we need to decide on notability based on sources. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , agree with you. and, then, we should consider the field. History of International Relations is an important field of studies in Continental Europe, Latin America and Far East. It is not the sub-branch of "history" or of "international relations" (this view is not so "popular" in the Anglo-Saxon world, where scholars are considered as "historians" or "political scientists", focusing on theories of international relations). And in history of international relations this journal is a prominent one. Mts-Lisboa (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2017 (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.