629:
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
Knowledge 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 Knowledge article or likely to be so used, as a guide to users. Such guidance is an appropriate auxiliary function of an encyclopedia.
687:
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
Knowledge'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 Knowledge.
462:
458:
202:
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
686:
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
628:
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
575:
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
431:
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.
454:
300:
453:. I started the page for only one reason: I wished Knowledge 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
379:
Examples of both types of journals are examined to see how well their online versions reflect and enhance their print content ... These two journals dispensed with the longer criticism, focusing specifically on book reviews written by a broad cadre of
503:
Look, it makes not a dime if difference to my life whether this page lives or dies. But if
Knowledge 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.
649:
How do you class this among "established cademic 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.
348:
This informal study looked at 104 titles listed in the 1995 Directory of
Electronic Journals, Newsletters and Academic Discussion Lists ... 1993: ... 2000: 12/250+. Bryn Mawr Medieval Review (now The Medieval Review). Reviews
163:
603:. 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
157:
118:
672:
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.
249:
223:
195:
123:
91:
86:
95:
611:. There are many delightful, interesting, and useful things in the world that do not lend themselves to being topics of Knowledge articles.
278:
78:
483:
Those references are just "in passing" mentions and don't establish notability. I think you're confusing "useful" with "notable". --
554:
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. --
178:
145:
273:
This is far from my interest area, but might I suggest merging and redirecting to a suitable target instead of deleting? Maybe
17:
139:
304:
page 146 *might* have a passing mention of the journal's archive of book reviews, but it is outside Google's preview
577:
738:
696:
681:
659:
640:
620:
589:
563:
538:
525:-- As far as I can see this is a peer-reviewed academic journal. As a result its contnet will normally be a good
513:
492:
474:
441:
418:
399:
264:
238:
212:
194:
Academic journal of unclear notability. Apparently not indexed anywhere, no third-party references. Does not meet
60:
759:
274:
36:
135:
758:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
726:
82:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
534:
734:
677:
509:
470:
185:
730:
673:
529:. It is thus useful to have an article on it. The main problem is that the article is only a stub.
505:
466:
323:
Crawford, Walt (2002-04-01). "Free electronic refereed journals: getting past the arc of enthusiasm".
414:
718:
551:
171:
74:
66:
530:
151:
340:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
585:
559:
488:
437:
395:
370:
332:
260:
234:
208:
410:
692:
655:
616:
51:
374:
636:
604:
199:
526:
112:
608:
581:
555:
484:
433:
391:
256:
230:
204:
336:
343:
688:
651:
612:
331:(2). Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers: 117–123.
631:
287:
Free electronic refereed journals: getting past the arc of enthusiasm
725:, the effort in the discussion here, should go there, I think. Also
550:
I can't say I disagree with that sentiment, but when I proposed the
281:. Meanwhile here is what Scholar found, outside of simple citations:
752:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
465:
among other places. So I say keep the page, it is notable.
361:
Persing, Bob (2003-09-12). "Reviewing the Review Revues".
717:
I do wish to God I had not started this page. Given that
108:
104:
100:
170:
409:. Appears bona fide and useful for history buffs.
203:I don't see anything that establishes notability.
301:Comparative literature in an age of globalization
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
762:). No further edits should be made to this page.
184:
8:
250:list of History-related deletion discussions
224:list of Science-related deletion discussions
552:notability guideline for academic journals
244:
218:
248:: This debate has been included in the
222:: This debate has been included in the
315:
369:(3). Elsevier Science Inc.: 237–242.
7:
279:Category:Medieval studies literature
24:
196:WP:Notability (academic journals)
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
375:10.1016/S0098-7913(03)00054-6
739:23:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
697:23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
682:22:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
660:22:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
641:22:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
621:15:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
590:10:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
564:10:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
539:23:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
514:19:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
493:07:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
475:04:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
442:01:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
419:21:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
400:16:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
277:(or "List of ...") to match
265:15:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
239:15:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
213:15:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
61:06:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
295:Reviewing the Review Revues
275:Medieval studies literature
779:
578:Bentham Science Publishers
337:10.1087/09531510252848881
755:Please do not modify it.
727:Search engine technology
32:Please do not modify it.
719:Intangible property
580:, for instance). --
75:The Medieval Review
67:The Medieval Review
729:, zero refs, etc.
325:Learned Publishing
44:The result was
267:
253:
241:
227:
59:
770:
757:
383:
382:
358:
352:
351:
320:
254:
228:
189:
188:
174:
126:
116:
98:
58:
56:
49:
34:
778:
777:
773:
772:
771:
769:
768:
767:
766:
760:deletion review
753:
723:zero references
527:reliable source
387:
386:
360:
359:
355:
322:
321:
317:
131:
122:
89:
73:
70:
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
776:
774:
765:
764:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
665:
664:
663:
662:
644:
643:
623:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
567:
566:
542:
541:
519:
518:
517:
516:
498:
497:
496:
495:
478:
477:
447:
446:
445:
444:
423:
422:
403:
402:
385:
384:
363:Serials Review
353:
314:
313:
312:
310:
305:
297:
291:
290:
289:
283:
282:
268:
242:
192:
191:
128:
124:AfD statistics
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
775:
763:
761:
756:
750:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
698:
694:
690:
685:
684:
683:
679:
675:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
661:
657:
653:
648:
647:
646:
645:
642:
638:
634:
633:
627:
624:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
599:
598:
591:
587:
583:
579:
574:
571:
570:
569:
568:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
546:
545:
544:
543:
540:
536:
532:
531:Peterkingiron
528:
524:
521:
520:
515:
511:
507:
502:
501:
500:
499:
494:
490:
486:
482:
481:
480:
479:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
449:
448:
443:
439:
435:
430:
427:
426:
425:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
405:
404:
401:
397:
393:
389:
388:
381:
376:
372:
368:
364:
357:
354:
350:
345:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
319:
316:
311:
309:
306:
303:
302:
298:
296:
293:
292:
288:
285:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
266:
262:
258:
251:
247:
243:
240:
236:
232:
225:
221:
217:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
201:
197:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
125:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
754:
751:
722:
630:
625:
600:
572:
547:
522:
450:
428:
406:
378:
366:
362:
356:
347:
328:
324:
318:
307:
299:
294:
286:
270:
245:
219:
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
53:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
731:History2007
674:History2007
506:History2007
467:History2007
158:free images
411:Xxanthippe
380:academics.
308:TMR notes:
54:Sandstein
344:0953-1513
119:View log
548:Comment
429:Comment
271:Comment
164:WP refs
152:scholar
92:protect
87:history
605:WP:WEB
601:Delete
582:Crusio
556:Crusio
485:Crusio
434:Crusio
392:84user
257:Crusio
231:Crusio
205:Crusio
200:WP:GNG
136:Google
96:delete
637:talk
349:only.
179:JSTOR
140:books
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
735:talk
721:has
693:talk
689:Deor
678:talk
656:talk
652:Deor
626:Keep
617:talk
613:Deor
609:WP:N
586:talk
560:talk
535:talk
523:Keep
510:talk
489:talk
471:talk
463:here
461:and
459:here
455:here
451:Keep
438:talk
415:talk
407:Keep
396:talk
341:ISSN
261:talk
246:Note
235:talk
220:Note
209:talk
172:FENS
146:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
632:DGG
607:or
371:doi
333:doi
255:--
229:--
198:or
186:TWL
121:•
117:– (
737:)
695:)
680:)
658:)
639:)
619:)
588:)
573:PS
562:)
537:)
512:)
491:)
473:)
457:,
440:)
432:--
417:)
398:)
377:.
367:29
365:.
346:.
339:.
329:15
327:.
263:)
252:.
237:)
226:.
211:)
166:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
48:.
733:(
691:(
676:(
654:(
635:(
615:(
584:(
558:(
533:(
508:(
487:(
469:(
436:(
421:.
413:(
394:(
390:-
373::
335::
259:(
233:(
207:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
127:)
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.