Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Medieval Review


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  06:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Medieval Review

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Academic journal of unclear notability. Apparently not indexed anywhere, no third-party references. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG Deprodded by article creator, who posted a few book references on the talk page where the journal was being cited. However, a few citations does not make for notability. As far as I can see, it's basically just a sort of email list, even if it has an ISSN. I would like this to stay, but unfortunately I don't see anything that establishes notability. Crusio (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is far from my interest area, but might I suggest merging and redirecting to a suitable target instead of deleting? Maybe Medieval studies literature (or "List of ...") to match Category:Medieval studies literature. Meanwhile here is what Scholar found, outside of simple citations:
 * Free electronic refereed journals: getting past the arc of enthusiasm


 * Reviewing the Review Revues
 * Comparative literature in an age of globalization page 146 *might* have a passing mention of the journal's archive of book reviews, but it is outside Google's preview
 * TMR notes:
 * -84user (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * -84user (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears bona fide and useful for history buffs. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment I'm not saying it's not legit or not useful. All I'm saying is that there are no sources establishing notability, which is not the same thing. I'll work the refs that 84user has dredged up into the article, but I don't think they are of sufficient import to make this journal notable. --Crusio (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I started the page for only one reason: I wished Wikipedia could have told me what it was. If I search for something and I have to do multiple searches, I build a Wikipage, so other people can get that info. So I think the page is needed, and it appears in books here, here and here among other places. So I say keep the page, it is notable. History2007 (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Those references are just "in passing" mentions and don't establish notability. I think you're confusing "useful" with "notable". --Crusio (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, it makes not a dime if difference to my life whether this page lives or dies. But if Wikipedia is to help users, might as well tell them what this journal run by a group of distinguished academics who live 900 years ago is. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- As far as I can see this is a peer-reviewed academic journal. As a result its contnet will normally be a good reliable source.  It is thus useful to have an article on it.  The main problem is that the article is only a stub.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't say I disagree with that sentiment, but when I proposed the notability guideline for academic journals it was slammed for being too permissive and as far as I can see, this journal does not even meet that guideline, let alone GNG. --Crusio (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PS And although I agree that this journal would be an RS, being peer-reviewed does not guarantee that. There is currently a proliferation of very low-quality e-journals and I think many of them will not survive and even if they do, won't ever be noticed/notable. Except perhaps for being bad... (see Bentham Science Publishers, for instance). --Crusio (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I frequently read the book reviews at TMR with interest, but there is simply not sufficient substantive coverage in reliable independent sources for this to meet the requirements of WP:WEB or WP:N. There are many delightful, interesting, and useful things in the world that do not lend themselves to being topics of Wikipedia articles. Deor (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep   Established cademic journals published by major academic presses are always or  almost always going to be notable.   (BTW, it may not be obvious, but the original title "Bryn Mayr   medieval review" is a tribute to the American school that was one the the 19th century pioneers in graduate study in classical and medieval studies.) I very rarely disagree with Crusio on this topic, but I do here. Even though our discussion of the notability  standard --a discussion in which he and I took almost identical positions --is fairly recent, I think opinion on Wikipedia is moving to a broader inclusion here. My own view has changed, in fact,to the opinion that we should as an exception to WP:N decide that it is appropriate to write an article on every publications used as a source in a Wikipedia article or likely to be so used, as a guide to users. Such guidance is an appropriate auxiliary function of an encyclopedia.    DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you class this among "established cademic [sic] journals published by major academic presses", DGG? What is the "major academic press"? This is an online "publication" that, as near as I can tell, is unaffiliated with any university press. Deor (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You know guys, I wish to God I had not come across this journal. Would have saved so much time for everyone. But now that it is there, let me just observe and be amazed. History2007 (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I "came across this journal" (which is actually a forum for online book reviews, not a journal) a number of years ago and appreciate its existence, but the fact remains that nothing that DGG or you say or do will magically turn it into an "established academic journal published by a major academic press". It looks as though this discussion is such that no admin will dare to delete the article on its basis, but that doesn't mean that the article satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria; it simply means that no admin will apply those criteria in the face of "keep" !votes from a fellow admin along with a few editors who have opined without sufficient investigation. There's no reason for you to wish to God for anything; it's simply business as usual at Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I do wish to God I had not started this page. Given that Intangible property has zero references, the effort in the discussion here, should go there, I think. Also Search engine technology, zero refs, etc. History2007 (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2010 (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.