Al-ʿArabiyya (journal): Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 12:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Academic journals .  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 12:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Hard to consider the journal of a redlinked institution should itself be a bluelink, right?  But this journal, published by the Georgetown University Press, is now in its 47th Year (from 1967-1974 it was published as Al Nashra ) and therefore already passes criterion 3 of WP:JOURNALCRIT, "The journal is historically important in its subject area."  Then consider its distribution by Project Muse, "Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources", and you'll note I bolded 'essential' there.  I note that articles by scholars in the journal get pretty widely cited, which deals with Criteria 2.  I can't speak for C1 - but do note that a journal should pass any of the three.  Also, as an English language journal focused on a discipline that deserves a great deal more focus in the West than it gets, it's a relatively rare beast - and therefore definitely worth a keep from me!!! Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't entirely agree with your assessment that being nearly 50 years old translates to historical importance.  Anyone could start a minor village newspaper, then hand down ownership to their child(ren), making it probably over 50 years old (if not more), but that wouldn't make the newspaper notable.  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 18:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd be inclined to keep this.   See the arguments I made in WP:SJ . — S Marshall T / C 16:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  WP:JOURNALCRIT is an essay that attempts to override GNG with inherent notability criteria that do not predict NPOV SIGCOV.  Per WP:N, it does not carry weight at AfD.  If we do not have independent sources providing direct discussion of the journal, then all we have is a database entry sourced to what the journal says about itself.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Having existed for 50 years does indeed not mean that something has an "historical purpose", nor are the numbers of citations very impressive, but citation levels are almost always low in the Humanities.  However, this is the official journal of a major academic society in this field.  Unfortunately, the association has no article, so we cannot merge there.  It is abstracted and indexed in several databases, but apart from Scopus, none are highly selective.  Scopus indicates 2019-2021 as coverage years, but does not say that coverage is discontinued, I think this is just reflects the fact that the 2022 and 2023 volumes are a double issue that is not published yet (or was published very recently).  So while I don't think that JOURNALCRIT #2 or #3 are met, I think this squeezes by on #1.  Also: WP:HEY .  -- Randykitty ( talk ) 09:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG , and per User:JoelleJay there's no good redirect target here.  If the journal is "historically important", I would expect to see that reflected in reliable sources, even as passing mentions.  More modern summaries in other (independent) journals like this one that describe the journal and its impact would lead me to vote Keep, although I wasn't able to find anything obvious.  (Other sources: not independent but useful context ; couldn't access this, but may contain relevant coverage )  Suriname0 ( talk ) 04:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Georgetown University Press .  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: delete