Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific Geography Series


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Withdrawn per the reviews added by. There are some issues left such as templates indicating "1985" or so as journal name or books being listed in the table and then as "source" for themselves in the references, but those issues can be addressed by normal editing. Why these reviews did not pop up in my "before" search I have no clue. Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Scientific Geography Series

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article appears to be well-sourced with currently 14 references. However, 10 of those are to the different volumes in this series. Of the remaining 4, two (#1 and #4) are announcements from the publisher and #14 does not even mention "scientific geography", let alone the book series. That leaves #2, a 1.5 page review of the first three volumes in this series that ran from 1985 to 1988. A WP:BEFORE search renders booksellers, but no real coverage. In all, this does not appear to meet WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Science. Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  18:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The Scientific geography series is a historically interesting/relevant series within geography, and one of a few sets of shorter concept books that were put out at the time to reduce the overall cost of textbooks by focusing on discreet topics. Reliable sources providing in-depth discussions of any academic journal are rare, as are reliable sources providing in-depth discussions of textbook series. The series is also older, so much of the original content surrounding it likely did not make it onto the internet, and many of the citations are probably not indexed. The entries of the series are generally fairly well cited however, and foundational in the development of modern spatial statistics, for example, "Spatial Autocorrelation" by "John Odland" is an early book covering an incredibly important topic in modern spatial statistics. On Google Scholar,Spatial Autocorrelation is cited 690 times. It is also listed in a peer-reviewed review article titled "Teaching and learning spatial autocorrelation: a review." "Central Place Theory" by "LJ King" is cited 381. "Point Pattern Analysis" by Barry N. Boots and Arthur Getis is cited 627 times.
 * I have added two more citations, one a review focusing on the latter two books in the series that discusses their context in the overall series, and another focusing on one of the book themselves as an educational resources. As far as foundational literature and older textbook series that were in print before the internet was widely available, this seems like better notability and coverage then some modern peer-reviewed journals. It is important to note that the sources state that the series is meant to be taken as a whole, with each version building on the previous ones and not repeating content. As the series can be viewed as one work in this way, each one of the discreet publications notability contribute to the whole.
 * GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 19:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: The following sources have been added to the article:
 * GeogSage
 * GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 06:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * GeogSage
 * GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 06:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 06:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 06:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep plenty of reviews on it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:32, 26 November 2023 (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.