Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Africa & Science


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Africa & Science

 * – ( View AfD View log )

While unusually difficult to search Google generally for due to its title, Google News, Scholar, and Books yield no significant results. Khazar2 (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, sadly. While it looks like a worthwhile publication, without other sources it can not pass WP's notability standard. BigJim707 (talk) 05:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't think this article passes our general notability guidelines. I wasn't sure what to do with this article when I discovered it, so I asked at WikiProject Academic Journals and WikiProject Africa, but received no response at either of those venues. For the record, I said this on its talk page: "I'm not really sure how notable this publication is. A Google Search for its title does not yield any relevant results beyond its website (though I'm aware that the phrase "Africa & Science" can be used in other contexts). There aren't any Google Scholar results either. Do other reliable sources exist about this publication?" Graham 87 14:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A search for "Africa-and-Science" newspaper instead does return several more results. You may want to review the search results with that query. Diego (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, most of them are from the newspaper's official website, and those that aren't are just trivial mentions. Graham 87 03:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I saw Graham87's note at WPJournals, but didn't immediately see anything helpful and postponed my response therefore. I still don't see anything here, so I guess we should delete it. I agree with BigJim707: sadly. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete in the absence of third-party sources that could establish some notability for this journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2012 (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.