Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Central Asian and Caucasian Studies

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 delete. W.marsh 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Central Asian and Caucasian Studies[edit]

Useless list dump, probably copyvio of http://www.isro.org.uk/junction.asp?lid=4_8_3_2&ln=TR. Circeus 21:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete 1. No notability asserted, 2. Copyvio, 3. Walled gardening. ~ trialsanderrors 23:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Board of Editors this is a major international journal, but I cannot tell what the article did or didn't say--I do wish people would not make hasty decisions based on their lack of knowledge of unfamiliar fields. If it was a list of the journal's data from its own page this is fair use, and not a copyvio, and more than a thumbnail of its cover would be.

I ask the more experienced WP people who have removed it what is the best course for me to take--simply add it back again, I suppose, and then defend it. I at least know enough to explain in the article why it is important. And what are the other articles that form the walled-off area? Or do you perhaps just mean that the journal, like most scholarly journals, requires a subscription? DGG 04:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the article as is practically useless, and doesn't make much sense, so it is probably better to leave it blank than to force people to wrestle with... that. Circeus 19:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you confuse a copyvio with fair use, and do not see the advantage of leaving a stub. The data there was by no means useless. Pls justify "copyvio" in this case. DGG 02:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it's copyvio, then it doesn't belong here, it belongs at WP:CP and must be deleted. No fair use rationale is offered,and the use of the text is not consistent with fair use. If the article turns out to be non-copyvio, then it should be deleted because it does not assert the notability of the subject. -- Chondrite 21:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment To avoid controversy, I have now removed even the fair use information from the journal's site , and there is no possible copyvio. I have asserted importance, and provided appropriate links to that effect. It is notable as the only journal in the world on its subject, published by the major institution in its field. DGG 03:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article contained copyvio content, then that content needs to be removed from the previous versions of the article. According to WP:N, "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Chondrite 07:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I was unable to verify that the journal itself is listed in the SOAS catalog. The claim that it is the only journal on it's subject seems to be original research: can a verifiable quote from a reliable source be cited to support that point? As mentioned above, even if true, this also does not establish notability. Chondrite 20:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. If SOAS says its the only academic journal dealing with its subject, that's good enough for me. WMMartin 18:46, 7 December 2006 (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.