Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Asian 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 keep. Withdrawn by nom and no "delete" !votes. Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Central Asian Review

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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 dePRODded without reason given after addition of some references that fail to meet GNG. Therefore PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn given the sources found by . Will close this in a moment. --Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I just noticed that while there was no edit summary the dePRODding editor left an explanation on the article's talk page. I note that the "Bibliography of Asian Studies", while thematical selective, is not selective in the sense of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Bibliography of Asian Studies is selective not only thematically but, importantly, in the sense of being selected by the top professional academic body in the field, the Association for Asian Studies. The journal closed long before any of the current indices were established. Randykitty's assertion of another definition of selectivity has no basis in NJournals. This page is useful and encyclopaedic, even if it needs further work. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've given my rationale and given Sheijiashaojun's behavior in a related AfD I will not comment here further. --Randykitty (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It wasn't the case when it was nominated that it had no independent sources, but I have also added a further one. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I have discovered some independent sourcing that covers this topic in-depth, therefore I must ivote keep::
 * The Slavonic and East European Review. Vol. 33, No. 81 (Jun., 1955), pp. 585-586
 * Osteuropa Vol. 4, No. 5 (Oktober 1954), pp. 403-404. This article is in German but appears to be significant coverage.
 * I also discovered the first reference in the Wikipedia article on JSTOR:
 * J. Miller. Soviet Studies Vol. 6, No. 1 (Jul., 1954), pp. 74-76. This too is significant coverage
 * So this satisfies GNG and NJOURNALS. Anybody with access to JSTOR can read these articles. As an aside, I could not find the quote cited by the second reference so that quote probably has to be removed.
 * ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have discovered another one:
 * H. Seton-Watson. International Affairs. Vol. 30, No. 3 (Jul., 1954), pp. 380-381.
 * ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Here's the link for that quote: https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Central_Asia/aPuQAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=gave+reports+on+a+wide+variety+of+Central+Asian+topics+glenaed+from+the+Soviet+press+with+often+favourable+comment&pg=PT276&printsec=frontcover

I didn't put the link in the article, but the reference is I think to the right page. I'll correct the typo now too. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear. I didn't find these references for you. So I don't want to hear "much appreciated" from you. I happened to find them and felt obligated to present them as an editor. It had nothing to do with you. Believe me, after the AfD to which RandyKitty refers to above, I have no interest in editing with you or helping you. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe it's normal and common practice to thank an editor who has rendered a service to Wikipedia, in this case in a field that I care about, but I will in future refrain from doing so since you dislike it. As for the AfD, I did what I thought I was meant to be doing to defend an article that I think meets notability. I went about it the wrong way, and apologised. I also think you would do well to take another look at the sources given in that article, for the same reason: your obligations as an editor, regardless of your opinion of me. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you apologised. I can appreciate that. But I don't see any change in your behavior. You started out this AfD bludgeoning again. Also, I notice you seem to be highly argumentative. And I am noticing a tendency toward owning the last three academic journal articles you edited, including the related AfDs. This is just feedback. You can take it or leave it. If you want to get along with other editors I would take a look at what I have just said. If you don't agree that is your prerogative. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OK Steve Quinn, I will try to improve my understanding about what is meant as bludgeoning and owning in this context. I thought I was disagreeing and giving my reasons, and reporting back when I had added new sources that improved notability. I'm not keen to be on AfD at all so I evidently have plenty to learn, but also don't want to have useful Asian studies journals pages deleted. And your comments about East Asian History (journal) not being published by ANU are clearly erroneous, which you can easily check (here for instance http://eah.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/article-content/36/EAH36_01.pdf), but likely to confuse people looking at that AfD. I think as a responsible editor you should strike them out. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Please add additional comments and ivotes below. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: based on my own search and sources provided by Steve there seems to be sufficient coverage in the form of review articles in other journals Eddie891 Talk Work 11:40, 22 August 2021 (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.