Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Literary Theory


 * 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. Procedural nom, no arguments for deletion, original prodder no longer advocating deletion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Literary Theory

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a procedural nomination. This article was previously deleted after having been prodded. I requested it to be undeleted after additional sources were uncovered (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals). The inclusion on the Danish and Australian list appears to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:Notability (Academic Journals). As the article was previously deleted, I thought it would be appropriate to bring it to AfD and will abstain from !voting myself. Crusio (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The two given sources are verifiable and reliable.Rirunmot (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep  The Australian list is simply a  list of all active peer-reviewed journals that might be of some relevance in the academic world, to which ratings have been added. The rating there is 3rd out of 4 classes A*, A, B, C.  The list in the humanities is essentially prepared on the basis of reputation, and has not been validated. Still, it does show that   the academics preparing the list have know of it, and don't consider it worthless.  (The Danish one is similar, though they   have not yet done the rankings--it shows they consider it worth including).   It only started in 2007, and there are not many library holdings recorded yet, and only AcademicOneFile and IBZ, the main German indexing service includes it. That both the Australian and the Danish academics think it already worth including  is an indication of notability.     DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I prodded this originally; I'm neutral now. It seems like it might just about creep into being notable. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Listed at WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. --Crusio (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The sourcing is pretty minimal, but it will in the not-too-distant future include multiple independent assessments of the journal's quality, and I don't think we can expect more than that for most journals. I wouldn't be particularly upset if this were deleted (I don't see it as a particularly important journal in academia, nor for the purposes of sourcing other Wikipedia articles) but I don't want to set a precedent by deleting it that would apply to other more important journals as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2009 (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.