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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journal. Not included in any selective databases, no independent in-depth sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below.[reply]

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

keep. Included in the Bibliography of Asian Studies, the "standard bibliographical tool" for Asian studies run by the field's principal body, the Association for Asian Studies and is compiled on the basis of "durable scholarly interest." See BAS article for source of quotes. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: in case anybody wonders why I don't react to anything posted by Sheijiashaojun, please see this AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was drawn into that Afd by another nomination from you, and didn't have a clear understanding of the protocol, for which I have apologised. It'd be great if you could stick to the matter at hand. Also, the Notability standard is not "in-depth"; it's "significant coverage." Sheijiashaojun (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just to let you know, "in-depth" and "significant" are synonyms regarding sources (or coverage) for editors on Wikipedia - perhaps by convention. There might be an SNG that actually uses the term "in-depth." In any case, think of them as synonymous or even interchangeable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: OK, thanks for letting me know how many editors understand these words. I think it's worth insisting on "significant" at times. For one thing it's closer to "notable" which is the key issue ("more than a trivial mention" as per guidelines is a different bar than "in-depth"), and for another it's the word used in the guideline. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This journal was a niche journal, but significant in its time. It is a notable journal. It is certainly worth keeping a reference with details on Wikipedia. The page needs to be improved rather than deleted. Pmccawley (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Pmccawley, I'm perfectly willing to believe that this was "significant in its time", but would like to see some evidence of that. Just saying "its notable" doesn't cut it. --Randykitty (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's in Scopus: https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/5600155104 Sheijiashaojun (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.

• Keep. Being included in Scopus meets the usual guideline for academic journnals. DGG ( talk ) 09:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn. I actually checked Scopus before nominating this article for deletion, but I only searched for the ISSN mentioned in the infobox. I also checked MIAR, which also didn't list Scopus. Scopus uses a different ISSN, this needs to be checked. Scopus coverage was discontinued, but notability is not temporary, so I am withdrawing the nomination and as there are no "delete" !votes, I will speedily close this as "keep". --Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.