Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Asian History (journal)

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. user:Sheijiashaojun, I have not read everything you have posted, that might make me a bad admin but the little I did read seemed to be making the same points over and over. If you want to be listened to, try and be more succint next time.

Much of the discussion revolved around whether or not the journal was indexed in a selective database. My reading of NJOURNALl is that it does not have to be in order to meet NJOURNAL, (but if it doesn't it is likely to fail NJOURNAL). However, a GNG case has also been made, and if that succeeds then the NJOURNAL status is a moot point. Two sources were put forward for GNG (Columbia and China Heritage Quarterly). No argument was put forward that these sources were not sufficient for GNG (but a third source, a French review, was deemed insufficient depth). There is therefore enough put foreward in favour of GNG without opposition for this to be keep. SpinningSpark 18:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East Asian History (journal)

East Asian History (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article does have independent sources, and history citations are always low, so these citations from Google Scholar are plenty. Editors and contributors independently notable, produced by a national public university. Selective databases skew recent, because there were no such databases in 1970s and 1980s when this journal was most prominent (note the name change,
  WP:NJournals (Criteria 2 below) but most prominently meets Criterion 3 as a journal of historical importance in Australian Asian studies, since it predates the current major journal, Asian Studies Review, or the main Asian Studies association the Asian Studies Association of Australia hence keep. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

 Cited by 80 Related articles

 Cited by 17 Related articles

 Cited by 14 Related articles

 Cited by 43 Related articles

 Cited by 10 Related articles

 Cited by 10 Related articles

 Cited by 32 Related articles

 Cited by 9 Related articles

 Cited by 27 Related articles

 Cited by 26 Related articles

 Cited by 26 Related articles

 Cited by 24 Related articles

 Cited by 9 Related articles

 Cited by 22 Related articles

 Cited by 17 Related articles

 Cited by 6 Related articles

 Cited by 15 Related articles

 Cited by 15 Related articles

 Cited by 6 Related articles

 Cited by 14 Related articles

 Cited by 13 Related articles

 Cited by 13 Related articles

 Cited by 12 Related articles

 Cited by 5 Related articles

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For the editors and university being notable, see
  WP:NOTINHERITED. Concerning the "historic importance": are there any sources that show this? AS for the citations, those would not be enough to make a single academic notable, let alone a whole journal. As for the "recent skew" of databases, that is incorrect. Most databases, including GScholar, go back many years. I appreciate your efforts, but unfortunately your arguments fail to convince, sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment When this is a substantial part of the output of a university centre, or of the academic work of editors, it is notable. I don't see why
  The Secret History of the Mongols, first published there. The history of East Asia is a low citation environment, especially in English, and Google Scholar is useless for Chinese and Japanese sources. Most databases are hopeless on pre-electronic journals like this one. You are acting in good faith, but I don't think you have an accurate read of what is notable in Asian studies or history. Note also considerable citation in books, especially in works on East Asian History in the 1970s-90s. Clearly professional historians have long regarded it as a reliable source. https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22papers+on+far+eastern+history%22 Sheijiashaojun (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What you need is a reliable source that comments upon the role of the journal in publishing that secret history. Or sources that comment how the centre is notable because it publishes this journal. Finally, please note that being a
  reliable source has no bearing on notability. We have lots of RS that are not notable and lots of unreliable sources that are. The correlation is zero. I won't comment further, it's all been said, let's give other editors the chance to chime in. --Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• And I have given that reliable source: An article in Mongolian Studies (another notable journal that could use a page) and another from
  The Secret History of the Mongols mentions it, giving sources, and I didn't put it there. It has not all been said, and I think I should point out where we differ, because it would be a shame to lose a page. Information about peer-reviewed journals is useful to scholars and students of history. Books and journals are where historical knowledge is recorded, and it is important to understand the context of those publications. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The article in Mongolian Studies is about the "Secret History", not the journal. Our article on the "Secret History" doesn't mention this journal either (not that it matters, WP cannot be used as a source for itself). --Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not correct on either count. Quoting from the Wikipedia article on the Secret History: "between 1972 and 1985, Igor de Rachewiltz published a fresh translation in eleven volumes of the series Papers on Far Eastern History accompanied by extensive footnotes commenting not only on the translation but also various aspects of Mongolian culture." The MS article is about Rachewiltz's book, but you said I needed a citation showing the influence of work in the journal. Quoting from the Mongolian Studies article, Rachewiltz's subsequent book was "a revision of quite similar translations of individual chapters published by the author during the years 1971-86 in the Australian National University's
  Papers on Far Eastern History" i.e. the journal that is now East Asian History. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Move / merge and then Redirect I think there is encyclopedic content here and should be kept if possible, and given the current geopolitcal goings on at this time, is likely to be sought out by people looking for general information via wikipedia. As to INHERITED or not, if the centre producing the journal is not notable enough to have its own article then it cannot inherit anything, constitutive or otherwise. If the centre's broader notablility can be stablished, I would suggest that the content here be incorporated into an article about the centre, eg, the journal is one of the things it does, and this content and its references would contribute to establishing the centre's broader notability. Aoziwe (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Centre does many things unrelated to the journal. It should indeed have an article, but that's not the one I chose to create. People interested in journals may or not be interested in the publisher, but it doesn't make sense to redirect notable books to the page of the press, and in the same way it won't make sense to redirect someone trying to find out the journal to a page about the Centre. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... it doesn't make sense to redirect notable books to the page of the press ... Agreed. The question here though is "is the journal notable in its own right", which I presume this AfD will decide. I was trying to suggest a way of keeping the content ... Aoziwe (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and thank you for trying to help, but it wouldn't make sense. Please note in Notability Guidelines: "or journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries when evaluating whether C2 is satisfied. This information is often available in Worldcat: https://www.worldcat.org/title/papers-on-far-eastern-history/oclc/2265702&referer=brief_results; https://www.worldcat.org/title/east-asian-history/oclc/1120263121&referer=brief_results. Held by a few hundred libraries. It's what you would expect for a regionally notable history journal. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case, library "holdings" are rather meaningless: the journal is open access, so many libraries will list it simply because it doesn't cost them a dime. It would be more meaningful if this were a subscription journal, because in that case it would mean that librarians made a decision to consecrate some of their (always inadequate) resources to this particular journal. But just putting a link on their website is cheap. --Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That may be true for holdings of "East Asian History" but cannot be true of holdings for "Papers on Far Eastern History" since the name changed in 1990 and it has not been digitised. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added the inclusion of Papers on Far Eastern History in the Bibliography of Asian Studies, which I verified by going in to check it. It's hard to show in any other way though, because EBSCO doesn't seem to keep a listing. I think the inclusion of the journal in this index may end with the name change in 1991. Anyway, I think this meets the 'selective index' concern, if for some reason one might think that Informit does not. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Select / deselect all  

• Weak keep - I'm prepared to give this the benefit of the doubt, it looks like there is some notability and some useable content here. At the very least the page should be userfied (per
  WP:ATD) rather than outright deleted to enable the creator to find more sources (if what is said about sources from the 1970s and 1980s being stronger - which is likely to be true). Deus et lex (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete no evidence of notability per GNG or NJOURNALS. I'm not seeing significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. This journal is not listed in any selective databases. Contrary to the contravening opinion above, these selective databases go back further than the year this journal was established. Also, this journal has been digitized all the way back to 1991 [1]. That means it has had at least 30 years during the "digital" age to garner notability.

In any case, journals were listed in selective databases before the electronic or digital age. Web of Science lists journals and articles all the way back to 1900. And Web of Science produces the Arts and Humanities Citation Index which itself has temporal coverage to 1975. Scopus has temporal coverage going back to 1788. So, if this journal was notable in its former iteration then it should be listed in selective databases under some related title. Also, having coverage in World Cat (library catalogs) does not denote notability. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This link was provided on the article's talk page [2] along with the claim this journal was notable during the 1970s and 1980s [3]. This link to Google Scholar is not evidence of notability during that period. The listed publications are issues of East Asian Studies. These are not independent coverage. And they don't discuss the journal's former iteration (Papers on Far Eastern History) in any significant detail. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the two bibliographies above, citing issues of the journal in its former iteration, or even the current iteration, does not demonstrate notability. These listings are just matters of fact. They are not independent sources providing independent significant coverage of this topic, which is needed to satisfy GNG or NJOURNALS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bibliography of Asian Studies is published by the Association of Asian Studies which also publishes the journal under discussion here. So, the Bibliography is not independent coverage. In contrast, Arts and Humanities Citation Index or Scopus would be independent coverage. And Google Scholar is not considered a selective database and does not indicate notability. What I am seeing as a significant part of this AfD, is referencing the journal back to itself or its publisher and trying to claim these sources indicate notability. And they do not indicate notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment With respect, there are several errors of fact above. The Bibliography of Asian Studies is published by the Association of Asian Studies; the journal is published by the Australian National University--They are not related. Independent coverage noted in the article includes articles from the Academy of Australian Humanities, the University of Sydney, Columbia University, and numerous other scholarly journals that are not affiliated with the ANU. In what sense are these not independent coverage? As to the question of index coverage--yes, Scopus, AHCI etc. sometimes go back in history with their coverage, but they are recent indices, and so when they indicate they are timespan they are covering journals the long histories of currently prominent journals, but won't cover a journal that was prominent in 1880 or in 1970 (and certainly not one that was prominent in Mexico or Japan). A&HCI was founded in 1978, Scopus in 2004, Web of Science would seem to be mid-1990s. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Web+of+science&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CWeb%20of%20science%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CWeb%20of%20science%3B%2Cc0 But on principle, why would North American or UK indices determine the notability of an Australian journal about Asia? As for Worldcat holdings, note 2c of Notability: "2.c) For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries when evaluating whether C2 is satisfied. This information is often available in Worldcat...Data on library holdings need to be interpreted in the light of what can be expected for the specific subject." Let me furthermore reiterate that it is included in two selective databases: The Bibliography of Asian Studies (which is US-based) and Informit, neither of which are its publishers or otherwise institutionally linked.

Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It is actually not that important whether the Bibliography is independent or not. It strives to cover everything published in its field, so it is not selective in the sense of NJournals. As for the coverage in other databases, especially Scopus works hard at including journals that at one time or another were influential and covers lots of stuff that is older than when it was started. (As Steve mentioned above, it goes back to 1788). --Randykitty (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It is important if it is incorrectly asserted (and deemed a reason for deletion) that "is published by the Association of Asian Studies which also publishes the journal under discussion here. So, the Bibliography is not independent coverage." As for Scopus, it remains skewed towards the recent and the Anglo-Eurocentric. Is the Revue des deux Mondes in it? Angry Penguins? The Edinburgh Review? The Young Companion? It's just nonsense to suggest that everything of note will be found in Scopus. Further, the BAS certainly does not "strives to cover everything published in its field". Yes, it is a comprehensive resource "intended for students and scholars interested in any aspect, discipline or sub-region of Asia." https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/bibliography-of-asian-studies/ which means that the professional bibliographers of Asian studies deem it useful (and notable) for the academic study of Asia. BAS does not cover the vast majority of thing "published in its field" which needless to say is overwhelmingly in Asian languages. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The publications you mention are not academic journals but magazines and fall outside of the remit of Scopus and Clarivate databases. And with its wide coverage, it's ridiculous to assert that Scopus is "Anglo-Eurocentric". --Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just pointing out that Scopus doesn't have some monopoly on notability (and ER and RDM very much were important scholarly fora in their day). East Asian History is indexed where you would expect it--in Asian Studies bibliographies and Australian academic databases. As to your other comment, please show me all the journals in Lao and Khmer that Scopus indexes. For its neo-colonial impact, see: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-012-0843-1 It's also a very doubtful resource for including many non-notable and downright predatory journals--because of its prestige, it's routinely gamed: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03852-4 Sheijiashaojun But in any event, nothing needs to be demonstrated about Scopus since both coverage and other external sources and other indices meet the criteria. (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. With respect there are provable inaccuracies in the above statement that responds to my statement. "East Asian History" is a journal currently published by an NGO known as the Association of Asian Studies.[4]. It's right there according to that source I just posted. This was removed from the "East Asian History" article after I added it.

And The Bibliography of Asian Studies is also published by the Association of Asian Studies [5]. This shows that this Bibliography is not independent coverage of East Asian History. The bibliography and the journal have the same publisher. Also, this Bibliography is not described as a selective index as needed by Wikipedia standards [6].

I do agree it is a comprehensive database. It even describes itself as comprehensive: "The Most Comprehensive Western-language Resource for Research on Asia" [7]. Just because it ends up covering journals that cover a geographic area known as Asia, doesn't mean it is selective.

In the first line of our article: "East Asian History is a journal based at the Australian Centre on China in the World at the Australian National University." So what does that mean - based at a department at Australian National University? That means nothing. And there is no evidence that it is based at this department in ANU.

Please post a source here that says "East Asian History" is based at a department of ANU. By convention, we write who is the publisher of the academic journal is in our articles. To say that the journal is based somewhere is nebulous wording

WP:WEASEL

. And removing my statement of fact about the publisher from the journal article taints the worthiness of this information on Wikipedia.

Additionally, no evidence has been provided that the current iteration, East Asian History, is published by ANU, as stated above. Please post a source or sources that say East Asian History is published by ANU, because there isn't a source posted in the article.---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does this above statement mean? Independent coverage noted in the article includes articles from the Academy of Australian Humanities, the University of Sydney, Columbia University, and numerous other scholarly journals that are not affiliated with the ANU. Can you post sources here to back up this statement? I'm not sure you understand what is meant by independent coverage. I see that you wrote "articles" not indices. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, That link goes to the

Journal of Asian Studies, a completely different journal, which indeed is published by the Association for Asian Studies and has no connection to East Asian History or the ANU. I reverted the edit because it is an error. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Second, several sources are given in the article to show that it is and was published by the ANU, including a submission to parliament: p. 105 here https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-1940330487/view?partId=nla.obj-1949620308#page/n114/mode/1up It is also on the journal's hompeage of course: http://www.eastasianhistory.org/

Independent sources in the Wikipedia article include from *Columbia http://www.columbia.edu/~hds2/BIB95/ch03.htm#East%20Asian%20History It seems to me that it both demonstrates notability and, as a Columbia review of Asian studies journals, cannot be impugned as an important independent source that rates the work as high-calibre. So I quote it in full: "East Asian History [Formerly Papers on Far Eastern History, through 1991] Published by: Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University, Canberra Type: Semi-annual - two volumes per year. Call no.: 1991-: DS501.E15; 1970-1990 (Papers on Far Eastern History, vols. 1-41): DS 501.A88. Library has: Papers on Far Eastern History, vol. 1 (1970) to 41 (1990); East Asian History, vol. 1 (Winter 1991) to present. Current issues on shelf. As Papers on Far Eastern History, this journal first appeared in March, 1970. Until the mid-1980s, it remained fairly low-budget in appearance. Its new incarnation, East Asian History, is fancier, with glossy paper and illustrations, higher-quality print, and footnotes printed conveniently in the margins alongside the articles. It was originally founded as a forum for the publication of papers written by the faculty and students of Australian National University, and this group has continued to represent the large majority of its contributors, although over the years there have been increasing contributions from scholars from other universities in Australia and abroad. Each volume of Papers on Far Eastern History included on its last page a short description of the contributing authors' backgrounds; East Asian History has foregone this service. Since the journal's inception, each volume has consisted of five or six academic papers, including full footnotes, and occasionally author's bibliographies as well. The countries covered have included Japan, China, Korea, and those of Southeast Asia. The heavy focus, however, is on China, and then Japan. A majority of the papers concern modern political and social history, though the magazine is certainly not limited to these areas. There are also translations from a variety of primary and scholarly texts, and numerous articles on ancient history, culture, and the arts, including literature, painting, and architecture. BOOK REVIEWS: Book Reviews do not appear.OVERALL EVALUATION: Though it gets little attention, the caliber of Australian scholarship tends to be quite high in many areas, and that appearing in this journal seems to be no exception. The first volume of East Asian History (June 1991) includes articles with such intriguing titles as "Concepts of Nature and Technology in Pre-Industrial Japan" (Tessa Morris-Suzuki) and "The Meiji Constitution: Theory and Practice" (Masuda Tomoko--trans. by A. Fraser). This journal is potentially an important source for all historians of East Asia, and should not remain "down under" in our list of consulted periodicals. INDEXES: There is no index to date of East Asian History, but a cumulative index (by author) to the entire run of Papers on Far Eastern History can be found in vol. 41 (1990)."

Some other independent sources cited:

• USyd https://www.sydney.edu.au/china-studies-centre/our-research/resources.html
• Monumenta Serica: Walravens, Hartmut. “In Memoriam: Igor de Rachewiltz (1929-2016).” Monumenta serica 65.2 (2017): 445–451
• Journal of the American Oriental Society: Street, John C. 2006. The secret history of the mongols: A mongolian epic chronicle of the thirteenth century.

and a few other journals and books. They're all cited in references.

• Sorry about confusing the names of the journals. I will have to look at the other stuff later. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. As to selectivity, Wikipedia doesn't define it. The bibliography certainly does select sources it deems useful and reliable for research (and exclude others as non-academic or non-reliable). I suppose what degree of 'selectivity' constitutes 'selective' is a matter of opinion. I wrote the entry because I work in the field (but not at ANU and have no affiliation with the journal) and it helps to clarify the history of Asian Studies in Australia. I think it can be useful to this admittedly small field; I don't see what's to be gained by deleting things that are notable, even if it is only regionally and to specialists. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Wikipedia does define selectivity for itself such as selective databases, which I posted a link for above: [8]. The founding of Science Citation Index, Web of Science, and Scopus has nothing to do with being listed in these databases. Temporal coverage matters more. But it probably means this journal did not apply to be listed in Web of Science or Scopus databases. I'm sure not every Academic journal feels the need to apply to be listed, and to see if they make the cut. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that the term 'selective' is not defined, it is simply opposed to 'comprehensive.' If it means 'selected by specialists and excluding other materials' then BAS qualifies. If it means 'Not including all relevant academic materials' then both BAS and Informit qualify. If the point is 'not simply sourced (like Google Scholar) without vetting', then both qualify. Simply opposing it to 'comprehensive' is not very clear, since databases such as Scopus (which WP defines as 'selective') also call themselves 'comprehensive.' https://www.elsevier.com/en-au/solutions/scopus Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To address your earlier concern about weasel words, I have changed it to read that it is published by the ANU without reference to the Centre (where contact is listed, and where the editing at least is housed). You can check that in the front matter here. http://www.eastasianhistory.org/sites/default/files/article-content/44/pdfs/EAH44_Preface.pdf

Selective is defined on Wikipedia for Wikipedia. There are the selective databases to which I linked above, and Wikipedia's notability criteria are also selective. There is nothing in polices or guidelines that lends itself to the idea that "selective" is in opposition to "comprehensive". Selective should be seen or defined based on this project. The BAS has not been determined to be a selective database according to Wikipedia standards. The definition you have provided is a

WP:OR. Every organization has its standards or it will fall apart. Same with Wikipedia. And I have been noticing a lack of concern for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which describe and characterize our standards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I am following the WP guidelines by my lights and as I understand them. I am not trying to make up some new rationale; I am trying to interpret what WP says about selective databases/indices. From your links and Randykitty's all i see is "The most typical way of satisfying C1 is to show that the journal is included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus. Being included in comprehensive (i.e. non-selective) indices and services like Google Scholar and the Directory of Open Access Journals are not sufficient to establish notability." That gives examples but does not define selectivity, except in opposition to comprehensiveness. That binary doesn't hold. So what is the definition of selectivity according to WP? Please give it here, because I am unable to find it. In any way I can interpret 'selective' in ordinary terms, BAS and Informit are both selective. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selectivity can be seen as technical term on Wikipedia. It is not merely the dictionary definition. Selectivity reflects the view of the following databases: The Web of Science databases have a vigorous and proactive selective process that is ongoing. There are teams of editors who are specialists in their field and have deep knowledge of the journals in their area.

Web of Science has an ongoing process of selecting journals that meet their standards and weed out the ones that don't. "...24 quality criteria designed to select for editorial rigor and best practice at the journal level, and four impact criteria designed to select the most influential journals in their respective fields using citation activity as the primary indicator of impact." [9].

"Any journal that fails to meet all 24 quality criteria will be removed from the Web of Science Core Collection." [10]. Also, the Journal acceptance rate is "10-12% for the three core indices - Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index." [11] and so on. Scopus also has a rigorous selection process. It has an independent Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB). [12].

Also Scopus has been giving Web of Science a run for its money. Here is a linked paper on that - just click on the title: Zhu, J., Liu, W. "A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers." Scientometrics 123, 321–335 (2020).

doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8

. This paper at the outset says: "Web of Science and Scopus are two world-leading and competing citation databases."

I haven't had the chance to look up

Chemical Abstract Services (CAS), but this is also supposed be rigorously selective. BAS and Informit do not seem to have these kind of processes. There is nothing that says they do. It would be misleading to say BAS and Informit are on par with these other databases, or have the same status on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Nowhere have I claimed that either is "on par", nor would that be relevant because that is not what the guidelines say. I have merely claimed that Informit and BAS are "selective", because that is a "typical" way of showing notability. Informit is "expert-curated" https://lthj.qut.edu.au/information/librarians (i.e. selective). It is also the "leading dedicated source of authoritative research from Australia, New Zealand and the Asia Pacific region" https://www.nswnet.net/vendors/rmit-publishing. BAS is the "standard bibliographic tool for Asian studies" http://www.nccjapan.org/eresources/guides/bas_guide_04-07.pdf . This was even truer in the period where this journal was most prominent, since the indexes you are citing didn't yet exist. I don't think you can assert that there is a different technical definition because none is given in the notability guidelines, and Informit and BAS demonstrably both select their sources. I do have reservations about Scopus and Web of Science for disciplinary, linguistic, and geographic bias, but they are also not relevant here (nor is the linked paper on their relative merits relevant, no one is disputing their selectivity). But even if it were really decided that these two were not selective (despite there being no definition given), this would still apply: "2.c) For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information" and WorldCat etc. can be consulted, and I have provided them. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Final comment. I think that the case for deletion has been clearly laid out. The case for keeping, despite the production of huge walls of text, misunderstanding of WP policies, wikilawyering, and general muddying of the waters is much more shaky, although I don't envy the poor admin who'll have to wade through all that stuff. Just one final remark (although I fear that it will cause another multi-paragraph diatribe): Yes, WP determines what constitutes a
  notability do we use it to base an article upon. --Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. The case for deletion depends on ignoring the multiple independent reliable sources--the
  Australian Academy of Humanities, the specialist resource from Columbia, among others-- that have been adduced. Even if it is decided that "BAS" is not selective, Informit is, and in any event inclusion in citation is only the "most typical" was of proving C1, but it can also be shown from the independent sources. But C1 is moot if C2 is satisfied. Again, 2c: "For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information" therefore other sources have been adduced. As for "general muddying" or "wikilawyering," it is only reasonable to respond to calls for deletion that one thinks erroneous or ill-founded (the largest 'wall of text' was in response to Steve Quinn's challenge above to produce sources here), and the casting of such aspersions is hardly congenial to building a collaborative Wiki community. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, looking at the sources, the article seems to pass. Looking at other journals articles, they only have 2 sources (e.g History and Sociology of South Asia and Central Asian Review). So I think the article should be kept. Sahaib (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's a bit dicey to
  Sahaib3005, I would appreciate if from among the many references listed in the article you could tell us which one(s) offer an in-depth discussion of this journal meeting GNG? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment The standard for GNG is not "in-depth" but the following: " "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I think the Columbia source and the China Heritage Quarterly Source would meet this, but most of the conversation here has not been around GNG but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals), which the journal in my view more clearly meets. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• for Randykitty it may be of interest that East Asian History and Papers on Far Eastern History are featured in EBSCO Historical Abstract coverage as well: https://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/hah-coverage.htm. You link to the EBSCO databases yourself on your Talk page under Links/References, so I gather you think it's a selective index. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• EBSCO databases are not selective in the sense of NJournals. And given your tendency for
  WP:IDHT this is the last time that I'll respond to you, so please don't ping me again. --Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sorry, I was trying to follow your own rationale, so I looked at the links you provide on your TalkPage around journals. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been hopelessly bludgeoned by the article creator, for which I've given them a slight admonishment. I invite somebody more adept at navigating atrocious walls of text (this page is at almost 60 kB) to take a look, since I'm not making too much sense of it at this point in time. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apologies for that. I hadn't been on AdF before and only came when the article was (some might say overzealously) nominated for deletion, and didn't know the process or the etiquette too well. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best not to point fingers. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This has been
  WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just here to renew apologies and to say that I have another dedicated (albeit short) review, at present footnote #14. For convenience:

It's in Web of Science 1975-88 (as "Papers on Far Eastern History," its name at the time) As far as I can see, WoS doesn't give its historical indices without going through a uni site, but anyone with access to WoS can verify by searching that name or if with a Clarivate account perhaps by this 'query link' https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/summary/09d45c66-f292-40af-862c-820d50359740-051076c6/relevance/1. Also listed here, which I gather is a list of all of WoK's abbreviations. https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/P_abrvjt.html Sheijiashaojun (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. There's an important difference between "citing works" and "cited works". The former are included in a citation index, the latter not necessarily. The list of abbreviations are "cited journals" and many of them will only come up in searches because an article published in the journal was cited by an indexed journal. As far as I can see, this journal is not included in any of the databases to which WoS/WoK gives access, nor was it ever (neither under the current name nor under the old name). Despite all the efforts above, this still fails NJournals and GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Randykitty is correct about the list link, sorry I misunderstood it. I don't think it's correct about the Web of Science Core Collection index itself...But if you go into the actual Web of Science Core Collection, the articles are all there, 1975-88, whether they've been cited or not. Below is an example (sorry about the wall of text, but it's accessible only through login and it gives the whole record for this and all the other articles in Papers on Far Eastern History, and it looks like articles included from any other indexed journals). Please note the Journal Master list is no guide for historical inclusions because it is for those that are currently indexed, not those that have been indexed in the past https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/master-journal-list/. I encourage those with uni access to have a look through Web of Science Core Collection itself, 1975-88 for this journal is fully indexed. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:A1984AAP5200002 :

"THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS .11. + TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY By DERACHEWILTZ, I (DERACHEWILTZ, I) PAPERS ON FAR EASTERN HISTORY Volume30 IssueSEP Page81-160 Published1984 Document TypeArticle Author Information Corresponding Address DERACHEWILTZ, I (corresponding author) AUSTRALIAN NATL UNIV,DEPT FAR EASTERN HIST,CANBERRA,ACT 2600,AUSTRALIA Affiliation Australian National University Categories/Classification Research AreasHistoryAsian Studies

See more data fields Journal information PAPERS ON FAR EASTERN HISTORY ISSN0048-2870 Current PublisherAUSTRALIAN NAT UNIVDEPT FAR EASTERN HISTORY, CANBERRA 2600, AUSTRALIA Research AreasHistoryAsian Studies Web of Science CategoriesHistoryAsian Studies"

Sheijiashaojun (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC) Can also be verified by WOS Accession number, which are searchable, for instance WOS:A1987L181200002 https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/summary/2c17a552-fa79-4266-a647-3387d6835ffe-051db768/relevance/1 Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It still fails verification. Note that those links only work for you, that's just the way WoS works. But I logged in and cannot see any evidence that this journal, under its current or its previous title, was ever indexed by any of the databases that WoS is the access platform for. Several articles are included because they are cited by articles in indexed journals, but that's not the same thing. --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and comment I'm swayed by Randykitty's arguments about NJOURNALS as there's no one more familiar with that. Also,
  WP:BLUDGEON. You've made your arguments, please let others (and there's no need to respond multiple times). Star Mississippi 13:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment But for whatever reason, randykitty is mistaken, despite their acknowledged expertise on NJournals and many contributions. That's fine. But please go into Web of Science and search by accession number. e.g. A1977EF70800002 or A1977EF70800006 or A1978GL25600010. It just is indexed. If on the other hand you search for CHINOPERL which is not indexed but appears in indexed articles, you just get the kind of search hits Randykitty is talking about. So...what can I say? It's indexed for that period. Check it by going into Web of Science yourselves. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree with you. Not every rationale has to be explained in excruciating detail, on-demand. The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not mean that others are obligated to answer, much less satisfy you with their answers. Consensus does not require unanimity, and attempting to argue the community into submission tends to backfire. Star Mississippi 18:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely consensus can only be built when people present evidence and other people look at what that evidence shows? It was evidence that hadn't been presented that speaks to indexing, and no one as yet has checked the accession numbers which show it. I don't see any other way to bring it to people's attention, so...check the accession numbers in WoS. Those records clearly state "This record is from: Web of Science Core Collection Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI)" Sheijiashaojun (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I was asked to comment: One has to look at the actual Master journal list, [[13]]--doing so, I find theat neither East Asian History or PAPERS ON FAR EASTERN HISTORY is not listed. This comes about because is a paper in a listed journal (called a citing journal) might refer to a paper in this particular series. (a cited journal). The publication being referred to will necessarily be included,, because that's the nature of a Citation index.But "indexed" in the real sense means that each of the items in a publication are analyzed to see what they cite.-- that the journal is a citing DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• Since I don't want to misinform, and was beginning to question wonder if I was using the Web of Science database incorrectly, I wrote the Clarivate customer service email and asked them to clarify what the situation was, and whether there was any external resource I could show demonstrating that it had been indexed. Clarivate, which owns Web of Science, wrote back:

"Thank you for contacting Clarivate.

I am consulting with my Internal team if the requested information is available for dissemination. I will update you once I have feedback from my team.

In the meantime, I have checked in my internal system and see that the journal, "Papers on Far Eastern History, ISSN: 0048-2870" was indexed in Web of Science under ARTS & HUMANITIES CITATION INDEX from 1977 to 1989.

I hope this information manages to resolve your query. Please bear with us during this time.

Thank you for patience and kind understanding.

Sincerely, [name suppressed] · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · [name suppressed] Customer Service Representative, Customer Service | Clarivate Australia Toll Free 1800 312 965 | New Zealand Toll Free 0800 443 162"

I will forward the email to anyone who likes on request, or you could call the Clarivate number or the Clarivate customer support [email protected]. Or...one could search "Publication title" or the accession numbers I have given (it isn't on the Master Journal list, because that list is only for currently indexed journals). Clarivate says it was indexed for those dates, and Clarivate should know. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • as Sheijiashaojun pointed out to me, I cannot rule with any resource now available to me. out that it was covered in earlier years . I consider the response from Clarivate settles the issue--we cannot use such information in the article but we can here in deciding about it. The best way to find something we can use is from a printed set of the index for those years, if anyone still has them. But in any case:
• Keep. It is clear from other information that it is a significant journal in its field, and out coverage policy for journals is very lenient. Our standard of indexing in general indexes fails to a considerable degree outside the sciences, for some of he most important publications in some fields of the humanities--especially anything published about less-studied countries and cultures are indexed only in specialized indexes, it being assumed (in pre-Wikipedia days) that nobody except specialists would be possibly interested. We have changed all that. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I also did a search on the Web of Science Master list a few times and came up empty. The assention numbers above don't work either. Also, the JSTOR article linked above is a one paragraph mention and does not discuss the journal in any kind of depth. It is more like a notification. So, it does not meet significant coverage requirements. Also, trying to find out about the former title of this journal is probably irrelevant because we are discussing this journal. Per NJOURNALS and other SNGs, Notability is not inherited.

And I don't agree with DGG about indexing services necessarily failing journals outside of science. "Asian" related journals are listed on the Web of Science. For example there is

Art of Asia, China Communications, and China Perspectives. Maybe the problem is academic journals have to actively apply and then journals must meet certain standards to be accepted for indexing on the Web of Science. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, User: Steve Quinn. Thanks for your thoughts. It doesn't appear in Master Journal index, because that's only for those currently indexed. Did you select the category "accession number" in the WoS search? I'd be happy to send the Clarivate letter or the screen shots of the listings if you explain how (I gather there's no way of posting them here). It's the same journal, it just changed its name (presumably because 'Far Eastern' was going out of fashion); and at that point WoS decided it didn't meet its requirements anymore and stopped indexing, I suppose. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely keep -- To quote the journal website home page, it is an "international refereed journal publishing scholarly research"; that is of course not an independent source, but do we doubt it is true? History journals do not feature well in citation indices, because (1) the citation indices were initially designed for science, not the arts (2) history journals are commonly citing primary sources, rather than the work of other scholars. It is often difficult to find independent sources on Academic journals (and learned societies), because they do not get reviewed. The best test would be whether articles in the journal are being regularly cited in other works. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Peterkingiron, any journal (even predatory ones) can and will claim to be an "international refereed journal publishing scholarly research". And counting citations is very subjective (and, again, even predatory journals will get cited). So should we do away with NJournals and ignore GNG and never take an article on an academic journal to AfD again? --Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is correct to say text from a journal's website is not independent. And this is because they are tooting their own horn. It is incorrect to say History journals do not fare well in citation indexes. On the contrary, Scopus lists History Journals. Clarivate produces the
  original research. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Clarivate wrote again, and welcomes anyone to write their technical support if they need further information about the historical listing of this journal (as Papers on Far Eastern History) in WoS: [email protected]. User: Steve Quinn you are on record above (9 August) as saying that Arts & Humanities Citation Index is independent coverage, and that's what this journal is in (but not in the Master Journal list, which is only for current coverage). If you are unable to confirm this by using the index with the relevant search terms, or if you do not have access, than Clarivate will be happy to tell you so, or I can provide by screenshot or email forward at an address you provide. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, significant journal in its field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackattack1597 (talk • contribs)

• Comment: Like the previous !votes:
  WP:ITSIMPORTANT... --Randykitty (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Perhaps these screenshots will help: https://paste.pics/aa98b5af491bc6562d4cd15b93153a22 https://paste.pics/60be7df421774dcf6878d133ccb492d9 https://paste.pics/850a40e81eb771f06cb9d001d9abaaa6 https://paste.pics/57aa0d9d0c797ec2b03b405f788b9754. As you can see, it is indexed in Web of Science (Arts & Humanities Citation Index) from 1977 to 1989. So the nom is mistaken. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to Worldcat, "Papers on Far Eastern History" is held in multiple libraries in the United States (in the midwest - University of Chicago, University of Minnesota, University of Iowa, University of Nebraska, etc.), far away from its publication location in Australia. The successor "East Asian History" appears to be equally well-distributed. This is enough for me to support a keep for this article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.