Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theatre Annual: A Journal of Performance Studies


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Jim Carter (from public cyber)  10:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Theatre Annual: A Journal of Performance Studies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested G11. Promotional coat rack biased towards subject of journal. No independent sources listed. Barely adds to Theatre Journal. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: For fairness reasons, this was the creator's contest rationale against the speedy deletion nomination:


 * This is an important academic journal, probably the 4th most important journal in the field of theatre and performance studies after Theatre Journal, Theatre Survey, TDR (journal). The information should remain online as a resource for scholars looking for 1) places to publish their work and 2) sources for research. It has the same information as Theatre Journal, which has been on Wikipedia for some time.

Mr. Guye (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I might be persuaded otherwise by an editor with special expertise in this branch of academic studies, but at first sight this appears to be a perfectly reasonable academic journal, and I had no particular difficulty in finding references to articles it has published. The problem with academic journals generally is that it's easy to prove existence, but it's much more difficult to prove notability for them. The people who publish in them, and even some particular articles in these journals, can easily be shown to be notable, but this is not the same thing as journal notability. In this case, I think the best thing to do is assume good faith in the above comment that this is one of the more significant journals in this field. If an expert in theatre studies claims otherwise, I could be persuaded otherwise, but for now I feel the balance leans towards "keep". For comparison, we have articles on the top five journals in my own academic area (indeed, we have many more than that!). In other areas, we are similarly comprehensive - see, for example, List_of_history_journals and List_of_physics_journals. I see no reason not to apply the same standards to theatre and performance studies. RomanSpa (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I find it dificult to assume good faith if an article contains claims that are demonstrably incorrect... This journal cannot be found in the ISI (Thomson-Reuters) Master journal list and therefore is not included in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index or Current Contents/Arts & Humanities, contrary to what the article claimed (I have removed this from the text). That casts doubt on the other claims of indexing made. Looking at Google Scholar, using either the full journal name (including the subtitle) or the shorter "Theatre Annual" does not provide convincing evidence that the journal has been cited a lot either. The only thing that makes me hesitate it the long history of this journal, which (even though the claim that it is the oldest journal in this -very small- field is not substantiated by independent sources) makes me think that perhaps there are some sources that we somehow fail to see. I'm surprised that the article creator has not chimed in here yet, as that editor might be able to provide better sourcing. In any case, at this point, this misses either WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  01:37, 24 July 2014 (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.