Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caucasian 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 delete. This is a very poor discussion. What needs to be addressed is the sourcing (or lack thereof) that establishes the notability of the topic. Apart from the nomination, the "delete" opinions barely do so, but the "keep" opinions do so even less. Arguing about what consensus means is entirely beside the point here. The article is therefore deleted based on Randykitty's and Headbomb's statement, who seems to be the only persons who have actually looked for sources.  Sandstein  11:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Caucasian Journal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "No indication of notability (yet?) WP:TOOSOON". Article dePRODded with reason "Please do not remove Caucasian Journal from Wikipedia. This project is important for peace-building and civil society development in countries of South Caucasus". However, this is not policy based. No in-depth discussion in RS independent of the subject (not surprising since it got established only this year). Does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ミラP 03:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ミラP 03:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft delete due to previous PROD.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC) Delete, don't see the notability. Don't see a good merge target either. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One last relist as a courtesy for, whose added sources were not mentioned by the discussion participants Thoughts on the added sources, ?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for the ping, I had already removed this from my watchlist. As I had the article also on my watchlist, I saw the added sources 2.5 weeks ago, but didn't think that it added much to notability. I just looked again and stay with my "delete" !vote. Headbomb's !vote was long after the additions, so he must have taken those into account, too, but I guess he'll comment himself shortly. --Randykitty (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * indeed, nothing to add. Being quoted in a handful of venues isn't enough. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with the deletion arguments. This is not notable. To further demostrate how unnotable this magazine, see how many times this magazine was used in Wikipedia .--SharabSalam (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I disagree with deletion arguments. If someone could quote exactly what is notable and unnotable for Wikipedia articles on mass medias, please? Otherwise it's speculation based on personal tastes without reference to generally accepted rules.  94.43.12.141 (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just see the links to guidelines and policies quoted above. And none of the arguments given above are "personal tastes". --Randykitty (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Please keep. I believe we have different views on what the word "consensus" means. According to Merriam-Webster, the Latin word consensus means general agreement,UNANIMITY. In the case discussed, as far as I can recall, there was at least one comment against deletion, specifically asking to keep the article (on the grounds that the journal was important for civil society or something like that). Therefore, according to the said definition, we cannot observe consensus in the sense of UNANIMITY of opinions, IMHO. Blanes 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've already replied on your talk page, "Consensus is not the same as unanimity." There is plenty of documentation for WP's operating procedure and I suggest starting there instead of the dictionary. Articles require significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. czar  00:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting point you've just touched. Do you generally place Wikipedia above the (world's most trusted) dictionaries? Just curious. Blanes 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, but that's how we use it in WP. Please read WP:NOTUNANIMITY. It's the same with "notability", which we also use in a manner that's perhaps not entirely consistent with the dictionary definition. --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2019 (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.