Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October (journal)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

October (journal)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional text, references are to the authors' publications and an interview with one of them Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  sst ✈  15:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article passes WP:NJournals because it is indexed in selective databases (see this list). The journal is also discussed at Rosalind Krauss' Britannica article and at this article at The Art Story. I agree that the article can be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion (see WP:ATD). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Follow-up comment: I have added material from the Britannica and Art Story sources into the Wikipedia article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources can be improved and expanded, but that's no reason to propose deletion.Mduvekot (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I brought the article here because another editor, whose journal article I had speedied as blatant G12, considered his treatment unfair because this was also promotional (although nothing like as bad as his). I'm sure it's notable, but in view of his valid concerns, I thought it should be put to the test. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even though the references are to authors publications, the fact that MIT Press thinks the journal is so important and influential as to reprint its articles twenty years later, says something. They (MIT Press) even have an imprint, October Books, named after the magazine. Its articles have a high impact factor -- but this isn't clearly documented for humanities journals the way it is for science journals.Grhabyt (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Notecardforfree. hinnk (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2016 (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.