Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Antique Wireless Association Review

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 repurpose article to Antique Wireless Association. Consensus here exists to keep an article on the association, but that the journal itself is not notable enough for a standalone article. I have moved the page over the redirect to Antique Wireless Association, the content will need to be updated to reflect the new location. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 06:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Antique Wireless Association Review[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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 WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article de-PRODed with reason "Numerous incoming wiklinks indicate deletion may be disruptive or controversial". No independent sources identified, number of incoming links has absolutely no bearing on notability, so PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the incoming wikilinks indicates that the AWA Review is an important source for those researching and recounting the early history of radio and telegraph communications. I am not aware of any other journal that is devoted to this subject. FLAHAM (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I noted above, number of wikilinks is irrelevant here. --Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is currently no separate page for the Antique Wireless Association (so I'll create a redirect). That society and its journal seem to be regularly cited in histories of radio and other related works. WP:JOURNALCRIT #C2 therefore applies. Andrew D. (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any evidence of this getting more than a smattering of citations, which is to be expected and doesn't suffice to meeting JOURNALCRIT#2. --Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion as no exact number specified. I remain satisfied that WP:JOURNALCRIT #C2 is passed. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To pass a single academic, we usually require several articles with 100 or more citations. Surely a whole journal should meet at least the bar that we set for single academics. There is no exact number specified, as this depends on the field. History is a low-citation density field (but technology is a high-density field), so we'd be happy with fewer citation than we'd require from, say, a candcer journal. Still, the citation rates that I see in GScholar for this particular jouranl are dismal. --Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The ideal case would be having an article on the association and merging there however. But this fails WP:NJOURNALS. Agree with RK that if you wouldn't be notable as a scholar for having being cited X times, then you're not notable as a journal for having been cited X times. I mean, you have book literally called History of Wireless that cites it exactly once. Of all places, if this journal was notable, it'd have been cited them a lot more than once in 577 pages. On google scholar, only 15 papers from the AWA review have been ever been cited. The citation counts are 36, 30, 15, 10, 9, 5, 5, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1. That's an h-index of 5. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose as an article on Antique Wireless Association, leaving a redirect. I expect the association does a little more than produce a journal. These specialist societies exist and it is useful to have articles on them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Small non-promo stub has value. Slash the external links if you think there's SEO intent, but it deserves a place. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ILIKEIT is not the strongest of arguments in a discussion like this... --Randykitty (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose as an article on Antique Wireless Association, leaving a redirect. Just Chilling (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2019 (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.