Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of planning journals

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of planning journals

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

List that seems to violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BenTels (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia contains many lists, including for specialized groups of academic journals. These are a valuable resource, helping define and demarcate a particular field of study. For fields such as Urban and regional planning, such a list would be too cumbersome within the main article on that topic. Redlinks within such lists are an important source for identifying related articles for future development. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some lists are extremely informative and valuable and add much to the encyclopedia (just see some of our featured list articles). Other lists are like this one: a bare enumeration of items, basically duplicating a category (in this case: Category:Urban studies and planning journals) and don't add anything else to the encyclopedia. In addition, there don't seem to be any independent sources that discuss this class of journals as a group. Hence, does not meet WP:LISTN. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the list is barely a month old, so there is substantial room for its further development as an informative article (still a 'stub' list). In addition to helping define and/or demarcate an academic field of study and (through redlinks) identify articles for future development, additional related information can be brought in, including comparative journal citation statistics/ rankings, publishers, editors, areas of focus, etc. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Place/institution of publication, years of publication, periodicity... Yes, all of this can be added to annotate the list, make it an informative table above and beyond the category, not that that's necessary to justify keeping it in list form as well. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTDUP and WP:CLN generally; navigational lists (i.e., those that index articles) function as a complement to the category system, and both systems have benefits the other does not. WP:LISTN has no relevance to such lists as should be clear from WP:LISTPURP, WP:CLN, and WP:SALAT (and by LISTN itself, which states that it does not apply to all kinds of lists); planning journals is what these notable topics are, so whether or not sources "discuss this class of journals as a group" is not meaningful here. So keep as valid navigational list, per my comments and those of DASonnenfeld. The nom's WP:VAGUEWAVE doesn't merit a response without some explanation as to why this list violates NOTDIR contra its navigational function. postdlf (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per DASonnenfeld. I personally am leaning towards "lists that duplicate categories should be deleted", but I also see such lists as having potential to become useful beyond categories, when we (eventually, I hope) add info like publisher, age, indice rankings and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:44, 28 September 2012 (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.