349:: I'm halfway between @RandomCanadian and @Andrew on this. Andrew's argument seems to be that we should allow articles on journals/magazines/other-sources to have a dispensation from the requirements of GNG as they are the sources we use to support other articles, and WP readers should be offered further information about our sources within WP. I believe that (1) this might be sensible, but ought to be decided at a bigger forum than AfD on a single article, and (2) if so, it should only apply to journals etc. that genuinely are sources, not to everything that might conceivably be a source. I do not know whether statistics exist on how often a particular journal has been cited in WP, or whether such a thing is technically possible. In effect, Andrew's argument comes down to "This magazine is not the subject of secondary sources, but it is used in tertiary sources (WP!), so it is notable to WP readers"; this requires proof that the magazine is used in tertiary sources, proof analogous to the normal requirement for secondary sources. I think??? Not sure if any of that makes sense???
658:
They have exceptions that do not require invoking via IAR. As it says at the top of the guideline box at the top of the GNG page, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Making sure we have an article on the leading publication of a subject is not the usual case which we discuss here. (even policy is of course subject to IAR, of course, but we properly are very reluctant to use it, and there is no need to use it here). Consensus to keep is a sufficient reason. Incidentally, if we did want to find sources to meet gng, I would suggest looking in textbooks about operating or constructing railroads in Africa, some of which will discuss important publications. No
Worldcat library has such a book. I did a thorough enough search to find 3 textbooks about railroads in
825:). As for systemic bias, that is a term often used loosely and, I think, incorrectly. Systemic bias is if we would apply different criteria to magazines from Africa (or articles about women, or minorities, etc) to make it more different for them than for European or American magazines to meet our criteria. Here the case is actually the reverse, if this were a magazine about US railways, most people !voting "keep" above would without hesitation !vote "delete". Systemic bias can be avoided if we apply the same criteria regardless origin. Unless sources can be found to
685:- Just revisiting this discussion. I am not sure what you believe justifies this article circumventing guidelines. No one can provide any reliable sources saying this is a major publication in an important field. I could create a website and associated social media profiles for a publication called "African Railways" saying it started publication in 1953, publishes 7 times a year and is the leading publication in its field. It would be just as notable and only slightly less verifiable than this article.
879:, or the wikipedia which deletes such content by maintaining rigorous adherence to our notability policies when it comes to covering this topic area? I would argue that inclusion of information about the sources we use creates better transparency for our readers in evaluating the content of the articles they are consuming. It is therefore a better service to our readers to include this content. As such, this is one of the few times at an AFD where I think the policy
707:. You;re confusing WP:V, which is policy with the guidelines for when we make an article in it, we our practice has always been enormously wider than GNG., or we would have almost no articles ontrade magazines or small newspapers. WP is an encyclopedia , and an encyclopedia , among other things, is a guide to resources. GNG is a guideline, and we followguidelines onl hwen they're appropriate.
657:
The actual policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and we are not being indiscriminate if we keep the major publication in a important field of human affairs. the GNG is a guideline interpreting NOTINDISRIMINATE. The reason guidelines are called guidelines is because they are just guides to fulfilling policy.
757:
copy on the publication's website and do a bit of free advertising for them. To write the article with only verifiable information it would be: "Railways Africa is a publication with the ISSN 1029-2756. According to WorldCat it has been or is held by at least 11 institutions and has been references
407:
does not reveal any usage on WP either. The source provided by Andrew is not worth anything (someone in an unreliable source saying they once googled the magazine is not much of an endorsement). Not that it means much but my institution’s library doesn’t hold this in hard or soft copy and we have a
235:
here (having an ISSN number is not "significant coverage" nor is it proof that this is notable). The publisher of this doesn't appear to be notable either (and doesn't have an article either), so there's no where logical to redirect to; and owing to the absence of sources it wouldn't make sense to
262:
The continent of Africa is weakly served in many respects and so it would be systemic bias to delete this. It is generally hard to find detailed coverage of journals but we accommodate them because it is helpful to our purpose to maintain brief entries for sources of detailed information such as
289:
is just an essay and certainly doesn't override that. Something being a reliable source does not mean it's notable. And what you have found doesn't seem to be enough to meet GNG (being a two sentence mention without any kind of detail to write an article from), less so when the source of this
367:
talk in this vein. He was a professional librarian and so tends to look at things like impact factors and library holdings. Me, I just take a more commonsense view that we're better off having a stub about this periodical than not. Then, if we cite it we can link to it and so help readers
874:
per Andrew
Davidson, DDG, and Shushugah. At some point we have to step back and ask, which wikipedia is better? The wikipedia that allows content on reliable publications/media that we use as sources, but which may lack enough multiple RS on the publication/media itself to pass
850:
You and I geerally, agree, but we cannot avoid systemic bias in covering publications if we make no allowance for the lack of availability in practice for most sources that might exist; that's one of the direct meaning of systemic bias: our geographically limited knowledge.
544:. Currently the article is two sentences neither of which can be verified with a secondary source. The phrase " the leading if not only publication" does not really give confidence in the reliability of this page and just sounds promotional. Without secondary sources talking
567:
per Andrew
Davidson and Shushugah. If the claim of being "the leading if not only publication covering railways in Africa and the Middle East" is correct, it is important to keep this for our coverage of African topics.
314:
is certainly optional – it's not a policy and it plainly says so ("occasional exceptions may apply"). It was not created until 2006 and so
Knowledge (XXG) got along fine without it for over 5 years. It is part of the
200:
776:
620:
161:
919:
Now that it as been called to our attention, maybe we should. This is an area where we need more coverage. The print is not easy to find, but most of recent material is online.
603:
798:
194:
586:
435:. Though written sources are still required to be able to write an article. I enclosed some examples where Railways Africa articles are referenced in other articles.
704:. nor would it show up in the catalogs of the libraries that hold it, and confirm the publication dates. Nor would i d GoogleScholar link to three articles in it
264:
93:
108:
536:
work here - unfortunately this small smattering of references to individual articles in the publication is too weak to persuade me. There is still a huge
717:
WorldCat shows golbally 11 universities (at some point) hold/held this publication from 1992 onwards (from this we cannot verify the 1954 date)
500:
299:
249:
134:
129:
905:
But
Railways Africa has never been used as a source on WP? See my above comment. In which case, this line of reasoning makes no sense.
427:, this is a trade publication, not an academic publication perse and is cited in the examples below. That and pragmatic common sense (
138:
88:
81:
17:
705:
121:
723:
That this is "the major publication in a important field of human affairs" despite no sources making this claim (not even the
215:
645:
182:
102:
98:
482:"The Governance of Concessionary Assets: A Review of the Partnership Between Kenya and the Rift Valley Railways Consortium"
821:. African or not, covering an important subject or not, what we need are independent sources on which to base an article (
702:
880:
951:
395:
and as it stands sounds promotional. Can find no secondary sources discussing the publication. It is listed by neither
40:
236:
keep it on the relevant list article (in the article see also section). So there's not much else to be done but to
404:
749:
because without having sources to verify the article contents all we have it an ISSN and a title to which I say:
641:
373:
335:
272:
176:
750:
910:
806:
784:
763:
690:
640:
The present article is barebones and needs cleanup, but I believe the publication meets notability guidelines.
553:
413:
295:
245:
754:
428:
548:
the publication we cannot even verify any of the information other editors are using to justify a keep vote.
431:), a publication that has existed for over 50 years and is cited in various peer reviewed academic journals,
930:
914:
896:
862:
838:
810:
788:
767:
694:
673:
649:
629:
612:
595:
577:
557:
526:
442:
417:
377:
358:
339:
303:
276:
253:
172:
63:
363:
My understanding that we are more relaxed about sourcing for such topics arises from hearing editors like
947:
36:
222:
834:
396:
369:
331:
268:
125:
350:
906:
802:
780:
759:
686:
573:
549:
522:
409:
354:
291:
241:
208:
533:
327:
316:
892:
497:
469:
77:
58:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
946:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
319:
286:
188:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
489:
461:
884:
728:
541:
408:
large transport research area. Even with the most generous of reviews this doesn’t cut it.
392:
323:
311:
282:
232:
847:
830:
290:
information is "After a quick search on the
Internet" (presumably, the same thing I did).
117:
69:
488:, Contemporary African Political Economy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 313–333,
720:
Google
Scholar shows that articles within the publication have been referenced 3 times.
624:
607:
590:
569:
518:
876:
826:
822:
746:
537:
926:
858:
669:
888:
53:
155:
493:
465:
481:
449:
281:
So again the same person compulsively voting keep on every of my nominations.
472:
921:
853:
682:
664:
364:
724:
400:
942:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
829:
what we write about this magazine, this should be deleted. --
443:
2003 Railways Africa article mentioned in
Transit conference
450:"The Gautrain project in South Africa: a cautionary tale"
701:
you could create one, but WorlCat would not include it
151:
147:
143:
777:
list of
Academic journals-related deletion discussions
207:
710:
So to understand - the arguments for keep so far are:
621:
221:
486:Public Procurement Reform and Governance in Africa
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
954:). No further edits should be made to this page.
797:Note: This discussion has been included in the
775:Note: This discussion has been included in the
619:Note: This discussion has been included in the
604:list of Middle East-related deletion discussions
602:Note: This discussion has been included in the
585:Note: This discussion has been included in the
799:list of News media-related deletion discussions
540:issue with using such weak sources justifying
8:
433:suggest it is more likely than not – notable
109:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
587:list of Africa-related deletion discussions
796:
774:
618:
601:
584:
480:Amadi, Henry (2016), Nyeck, S.N. (ed.),
454:Journal of Contemporary African Studies
231:Cannot find anything to substantiate
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
368:understand its nature and standing.
322:which is the reverse of policy per
403:- so no impact factor etc. A look
24:
881:Knowledge (XXG):Ignore all rules
758:in at least 3 academic papers."
267:for a discussion of the matter.
94:Introduction to deletion process
448:Thomas, David P. (2013-01-01).
931:23:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
915:22:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
897:19:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
863:06:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
839:08:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
811:06:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
789:06:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
768:07:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
695:04:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
674:00:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
650:22:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
630:19:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
613:19:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
596:19:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
578:17:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
558:06:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
527:16:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
418:13:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
378:12:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
359:12:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
340:12:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
304:12:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
277:08:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
254:02:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
64:08:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1:
887:should be routinely invoked.
494:10.1057/978-1-137-52137-8_14
466:10.1080/02589001.2013.747292
84:(AfD)? Read these primers!
971:
944:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
727:!) so we should ignore
285:is not optional; while
753:. Or, we believed the
734:It would be biased to
82:Articles for deletion
642:Trainsandotherthings
397:SCImago Journal Rank
725:magazine's website
813:
791:
738:have this article
662:--but not Africa.
632:
615:
598:
502:978-1-137-52137-8
99:Guide to deletion
89:How to contribute
62:
962:
627:
610:
593:
511:
510:
509:
476:
226:
225:
211:
159:
141:
79:
56:
34:
970:
969:
965:
964:
963:
961:
960:
959:
958:
952:deletion review
751:WP:NOTDIRECTORY
625:
608:
591:
507:
505:
503:
479:
447:
168:
132:
118:Railways Africa
116:
113:
76:
73:
70:Railways Africa
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
968:
966:
957:
956:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
907:Vladimir.copic
900:
899:
868:
867:
866:
865:
842:
841:
815:
814:
803:Vladimir.copic
793:
792:
781:Vladimir.copic
772:
771:
770:
760:Vladimir.copic
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
732:
721:
718:
712:
711:
698:
697:
687:Vladimir.copic
677:
676:
652:
634:
633:
616:
599:
581:
580:
561:
560:
550:Vladimir.copic
515:
514:
513:
512:
501:
477:
445:
437:
436:
429:WP:DEFUNCTNEWS
421:
420:
410:Vladimir.copic
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
344:
343:
342:
292:RandomCanadian
242:RandomCanadian
229:
228:
165:
112:
111:
106:
96:
91:
74:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
967:
955:
953:
949:
945:
940:
939:
932:
928:
924:
923:
918:
917:
916:
912:
908:
904:
903:
902:
901:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
873:
870:
869:
864:
860:
856:
855:
849:
846:
845:
844:
843:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
817:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
795:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
773:
769:
765:
761:
756:
752:
748:
744:
737:
733:
730:
726:
722:
719:
716:
715:
714:
713:
709:
708:
706:
703:
700:
699:
696:
692:
688:
684:
681:
680:
679:
678:
675:
671:
667:
666:
661:
656:
653:
651:
647:
643:
639:
636:
635:
631:
628:
622:
617:
614:
611:
605:
600:
597:
594:
588:
583:
582:
579:
575:
571:
566:
563:
562:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
530:
529:
528:
524:
520:
504:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
478:
474:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
446:
444:
441:
440:
439:
438:
434:
430:
426:
423:
422:
419:
415:
411:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
387:
379:
375:
371:
366:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
348:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
318:
313:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
301:
297:
293:
288:
284:
280:
279:
278:
274:
270:
266:
261:
258:
257:
256:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
234:
224:
220:
217:
214:
210:
206:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
174:
171:
170:Find sources:
166:
163:
157:
153:
149:
145:
140:
136:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:
110:
107:
104:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
86:
85:
83:
78:
71:
68:
66:
65:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
943:
941:
920:
871:
852:
818:
735:
663:
659:
654:
637:
564:
545:
516:
506:, retrieved
485:
460:(1): 77–94.
457:
453:
432:
424:
388:
346:
259:
237:
230:
218:
212:
204:
197:
191:
185:
179:
169:
75:
49:
47:
31:
28:
755:promotional
745:I bring up
320:bureaucracy
263:this. See
195:free images
848:Randykitty
831:Randykitty
521:(he/him •
508:2021-09-10
948:talk page
626:Spiderone
609:Spiderone
592:Spiderone
570:NemesisAT
534:WP:BEFORE
519:Shushugah
473:0258-9001
391:as fails
351:Elemimele
328:WP:NOTLAW
37:talk page
950:or in a
317:creeping
300:contribs
250:contribs
162:View log
103:glossary
39:or in a
889:4meter4
347:Comment
287:WP:BIAS
201:WP refs
189:scholar
135:protect
130:history
80:New to
885:WP:5P5
827:verify
819:Delete
729:WP:GNG
542:WP:GNG
532:Great
401:Scopus
393:WP:GNG
389:Delete
370:Andrew
332:Andrew
324:WP:IAR
312:WP:GNG
283:WP:GNG
269:Andrew
240:this.
238:delete
233:WP:GNG
173:Google
139:delete
927:talk
859:talk
670:talk
660:India
655:Keep.
546:about
216:JSTOR
177:books
156:views
148:watch
144:links
16:<
911:talk
893:talk
883:and
877:WP:N
872:Keep
835:talk
823:WP:V
807:talk
785:talk
764:talk
747:WP:V
691:talk
683:@DGG
646:talk
638:Keep
574:talk
565:Keep
554:talk
538:WP:V
523:talk
498:ISBN
470:ISSN
425:Keep
414:talk
405:here
399:nor
374:talk
355:talk
336:talk
326:and
310:The
296:talk
273:talk
265:here
260:Keep
246:talk
209:FENS
183:news
152:logs
126:talk
122:edit
59:talk
52:. –
50:keep
922:DGG
854:DGG
736:not
665:DGG
490:doi
462:doi
372:🐉(
365:DGG
334:🐉(
302:)
271:🐉(
252:)
223:TWL
160:– (
54:Joe
929:)
913:)
895:)
861:)
837:)
809:)
801:.
787:)
779:.
766:)
693:)
672:)
648:)
623:.
606:.
589:.
576:)
556:)
525:)
517:~
496:,
484:,
468:.
458:31
456:.
452:.
416:)
376:)
357:)
338:)
330:.
298:/
275:)
248:/
203:)
154:|
150:|
146:|
142:|
137:|
133:|
128:|
124:|
925:(
909:(
891:(
857:(
833:(
805:(
783:(
762:(
731:.
689:(
668:(
644:(
572:(
552:(
492::
475:.
464::
412:(
353:(
294:(
244:(
227:)
219:·
213:·
205:·
198:·
192:·
186:·
180:·
175:(
167:(
164:)
158:)
120:(
105:)
101:(
61:)
57:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.