Archievenblad : In the current version , 6 sources are listed: 1/ Not accessible; 2/ Advertisement for ads in the journal, does not contribute to notability.  3/ Library catalog entry.  Besides the fact that library catalogs are notoriously prone to erroneous or outdated info, this does not contribute to notability.  4/ In passing mention to one of the progenitor journals, the "Nederlandse Archievenblad"  (sic, typo of "Nederlandsch Archievenblad"?), does not contribute to notability.  5/ Cannot find a mention of this journal in this book, it does reference the  (unrelated)  "Antwerpsch Archievenblad".  Does not contribute to notability.  6/ Probably a copyvio, for which academia.edu is notorious (so we shouldn't link to it).  The "jaarboek" is financed by the "Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen Nederland", the publisher of the journal and is therefore not independent.  Therefore, with the possible exception of reference 1, there are no sources indicating notability.  One source is not enough, so WP:GNG is not met either.  Hence: delete .  Randykitty ( talk ) 15:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Netherlands .  Randykitty ( talk ) 15:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Perhaps an article about nl:Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen in Nederland (Royal Association of Archivists in the Netherlands), the association that publishes the journal, could be created, based on the existing Dutch Wikipedia article and with a paragraph or two about the journal.  A quick Google search https://www.google.com/search? q=Royal+Association+of+Archivists+in+the+Netherlands suggests that the association is probably notable.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since NN per se.  No objection that someone would rework this as Eastmain suggests.  gidonb ( talk ) 12:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS #3 (sourced historical importance).  The sources in the article as nominated are not great: 1-5 do not appear to give reliable in-depth independent coverage, and 6 focuses on an incident triggered by a publication in the journal but is otherwise not really about the journal.  But there appears to be in-depth coverage of this journal in The American Archivist and regular reviews of its content in Gazette des archives [17] [18] [19] , I think maybe enough together with the existing footnote 6.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:40, 7 August 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!  17:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG based on the sources provided by @ David Eppstein : .  I am assuming Nederlandsch Archievenblad is the forerunner of this journal under discussion.  I agree this journal is covered in the sources provided.  I added the Official website to the external links (not that this matters in a deletion discussion).  I think I will try to add info to the infobox.  I know, I get to have all the fun here!  --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 18:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to WorldCat this is carried by 52 libraries, including several U.S. libraries, such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton; and one in the U.K.; more in the Netherlands; one in Sweden, and one in South Africa. I am guessing there are about 40 libraries in the Netherlands that are listed here. I believe the late great DGG would consider these library subscriptions to be a factor contributing to this journal's notability. --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 19:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG and given the national and international influence of this Dutch journal of archival science over its 130+ year history.  "Best"  English-language sources thus far include The American Archivist journal article highlighted by David Eppstein, as well as the 2003 introduction to The Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives (called the "bible of modern archivists"), both of which have now been added to the article.  (Also wanted to point out that the Acta Historiae Neerlandica actually does mention the correct Archievenblad but that it is mentioned and cited repeatedly as Nederlandse Archievenblad .)  As others have said, there appear to be numerous other sources in other languages including Dutch and French and Italian and probably German.  Fully acknowledge that this article could be improved further by tracking down additional sources with the help of librarians/library scientists/historians, but this is not sufficient reason to delete.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep For the reasons given by Steve Quinn and Cielquiparle.  Philafrenzy ( talk ) 21:59, 14 August 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: keep