Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan journal of history


 * 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   delete. Mr.Z-man 03:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Michigan journal of history

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. No third-party references establishing this journal's notability. The references inserted recently are from the journal, while in fact they should be about the journal and from another publisher not associated with the journal.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 04:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 13:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Horrors! This is even more embarrassing than losing a football game to the University of Toledo.  An article about a journal published at the University of Michigan should be reviewed before it is "published", particularly for such details as proper capitalization.  Mandsford (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Besides the usual lack of third party references, the fact that this journal is entirely staffed by students makes me doubt that it will ever become notable as an academic journal. VG &#x260E; 15:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I see only one google news hit on it. It's from Feb 13, 2004 in the Michigan Daily. We66er (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The article indicates that this is a student journal, publishing students' work and run by students. It is not a peer-reviewed academic journal, but presumably only publishing the best student essays.  Possibly a sentence (with an external link) might be added to an article on Michigan University or its school of history, but that is all.  My view would be different if it was peer-reviewed or publishing post-graduate research papers (but that is not what it says).  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2008 (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.