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 keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quarterly Review of Film and Video[edit]

Quarterly Review of Film and Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

name 1976-1988:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG -- no in-depth coverage in reliable sources, and from what I can tell this journal's impact factor is negligible. The article has remained unreferenced despite my own searches and despite cleanup tags in place since August 2013. Psychonaut (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer: Nominator has withdrawn his nomination below. See this diff. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (changed to Keep) -- seems like it does. If I remember, the standards were rather lower back in 2006 when I created it. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  Based on User:MichaelQSchmidt's first link below, I've changed my mind and do consider this to be worth keeping (although I'm certainly still open to merging it into a larger topic). JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep (see below) per being sourcable and passing WP:TEXTBOOKS and being one of the best known of its type and through meeting WP:USEBYOTHERS: [1],[2],[3][4],[5],[6],[7], and many dozens of others. The applicable guideline tells us "Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic regime. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, suggested bases for a finding of notability include whether the book is published by an academic press,[7] how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media,[8] how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions". IE: WP:GNG is not the determinant of notability for an academic text. I note also that it even passes the ESSAY WP:NJournals criterias #1, #2 & #3. This journal is notable to and strongly used by its industry. It is not expected to be a New York Times "best seller". THAT would be a different inclusion criteria. And JesseW, you did good when you brought this topic to Wikipedia. It improves the project to inform our readers of this widely-cited and influential journal. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is about a journal, not a book; WP:TEXTBOOKS doesn't apply. And I'm not sure what listing a few individual citations is supposed to prove; every academic journal, legitimate and otherwise, gets citations (and particularly self-citations, as many of the ones you posted are). The question is whether the overall pattern of them, or some other more direct evidence, shows the journal to be influential in the field. Do we have any independent sources which explicitly characterize QRFV as influential? Or can you point to a source showing that the citations have led to a particularly high impact factor? Across the entire lifetime of the journal Thomson Reuters shows the average number of citations per year (including self-citations) to be 17, which I'm not sure sufficiently distinguishes it from the dozens of other journals in the field. (It's certainly far behind Journal of Popular Film & Television and Literature/Film Quarterly, and completely dwarfed by Film Quarterly and Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, which each have about twice as many yearly citations.) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Their own name for themselves notwithstanding, being published in hard-copy four times a year kind of qualifies it as an academic text as defined in the section WP:TXTBKS. ANd sorry, the numerous sources which cite and quote this journal disprove your opinion "from what I can tell this journal's impact factor is negligible". My own determination is the opposite, as it's WP:USEBYOTHERS is the determinant. It HAS impact. Maybe none to you, but to the film industry and film historians and film researchers, yes. And the 2,900 Google Scholar hits is far more indicative of an actual "impact", than anyone simply saying it has none. That other may have more citations or less is a non-argument. We're talking about this ONE, not any others. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:USEBYOTHERS is a guideline intended to identify reliable sources used for sourcing articles; it is not a test for the notability of any given subject. And no, being printed in hard copy doesn't qualify it as a book, which is the only thing WP:TXTBKS refers to. Finally, the essay you yourself cited in support of keeping this article (WP:NJournals) specifically states that "Google Scholar should not be used as an indication of notability". Is there any policy or guideline you can point to which doesn't require a liberal amount of shoehorning or selective interpretation to fit this case? If not, then WP:GNG is indeed the standard here. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The GNG is NOT the final word on notability, or else all the various SNGS would be summarily deleted... and that just ain't gonna happen. What is being overlooked is that the notability essay with which you yourself tagged the article offers as criteria for journal notability that either 1) the journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area (it is) or 2) The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources (it is). Both existing circumstances are shown by the numerous offered examples if its use BY others... showing it influential and often cited. Seems pretty clear cut to me that those criteria are met without there also being a call also for GNG. While the GNG is the simplest means by which to gauge notability, existing guidelines show it is not the only gauge. Even WP:TXTBKS tells us that academic works are not measured by the same criteria as are New York Times best sellers. W:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE and discussion will tell, as there is nothing that can be said here to dissuade a person who so ardently wishes the topic removed. Consensus will be the final arbiter, not WP:BLUD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:IAR does not give you licence to blatantly misrepresent my edits. Nowhere in that diff, nor in any other edit I made to the article, did I tag it as failing to meet the requirements in WP:NJournals, which is an essay that neither I nor the community at large fully agrees with. I tagged it as failing to meet the requirements set out in the community-approved guideline WP:GNG, and I stand by that assessment. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You tagged the article and the BattyBot acted upon your tag. Perhaps the bot is broken in how it mis-responded to your tag, but it's still incorrect to declare that the GNG is the "ONLY" notability guide... specially when even when that guide itself tells us that there are other means to gauge notability when GNG is not met (gasp!). That must be one of the reasons why each guideline is headed by the community approved nutshell "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." If common sense and occasional exceptions were not community approved, all those guideline nutshells would themselves be removed project-wide.... and that is unlikely to happen. I've stated and explained my keep. You're stated and re-stated your delete. Bye. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate, and merge or redirect to Taylor and Francis  WP:Notability is not a content policy, it is a guideline as to whether a topic has received enough attention from the world at large to merit a standalone article rather than a lesser role within a larger topic, and requires no sourcing in an article.  Nor is WP:N a deletion policy, although a special case exists within WP:Deletion policy for when there is no suitable larger topic.  WP:V#Notability is content policy, and this article currently has no source to satisfy this requirement.  This article significantly lacks in inline citations, so fails WP:V in two different ways.  The topic, however, has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time, and this includes Wikipedia editors, for whom encyclopedic coverage with reliable information on a WP:RS is of importance.  This Wikipedia search shows thirty articles with the string "Quarterly Journal of Film and Video".  The related specification in WP:BEFORE mentions the "What Links Here", which has a shorter list whose mention would have been appropriate in the nomination.  The WP:BEFORE book's test finds hundreds of ghits, the mention of which would have been appropriate in the nomination.  I specifically found that the first 300 ghits have the words "Quarterly Journal of Film and Video" in bold in the snippets, so merit further attention.  But also, it is not necessary that a topic that passes WP:N be retained as a standalone topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or Incubate, or Merge & redirect. My thanks to Unscintillating for offering a decent alternative that serves the project and its readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Journals in the humanities are much less cited than in the social of life sciences. Also, Thomson Reuters databases will also miss most citations, because much of what gets published in the humanities is published in book form, not journal articles. However, the journal is included in the MLA International Bibliography, which is selective enough to meet WP:NJournals. BTW, it is not published by Taylor and Francis directly, but by their imprint Routledge. --Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Psychonaut, what is your impression of WP:NJournals applying here? I researched the topic a little bit, and while I see that there is not coverage, it is frequently cited across many reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My impression is that essays do not generally apply to AfD discussions. The WP:NJournals essay in particular has some serious shortcomings, and I do not think its criteria should be used as a yardstick of notability. Psychonaut (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it should be dismissed as just an essay. It is part of the family of subject-specific guidelines. For whatever reason, it is not directly labeled as such. Why can't it be treated as a de facto guideline for academic journals? Surely the subject matters in determining notability, and the criteria outlined there is not unreasonable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not part of a family of guidelines; it is an opinion piece which has been placed in the Wikipedia namespace but which is largely the work of a single author, and has no particular authority. Note the banner at the top of the page, which says, "This essay contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors... Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." I think it would useful to develop a notability guideline for journals, and certainly WP:NJournals could be used as a starting point, but this is something the community will have to flesh out over there, not here. Psychonaut (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  From the NJournals talk page archives, you can see that years ago it went "up for guideline". It was attacked by two groups of people: those who thought it was too exclusive and those who thought it was too inclusive... (Personally, that makes me think that at least on the level of inclusiveness it got things right). Neither side wanted to compromise. So it remained an "essay". Nevertheless, it has since then been used in dozens if not hundreds of AfD debates. Throw out NJournals, and >95% of all articles on academic journals should be deleted. I think that inclusion in a selective database is actually a pretty good criterion. It implies that a committee of established experts have evaluated the journal and given it their stamp of approval. Sure, that does not give much verifiable content, but all other uncontroversial stuff we can get from the journal's homepage. --Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I said it is part of a family because it is part of the sidebar that lists subject-specific guidelines. However, it looks like the page was added in July 2014, so I suppose it has not been visible for very long. I do see how this topic lacks coverage, but I don't think it should be a red link. I actually remembered that I expanded list of film periodicals a while back (and a bit sloppily, pardon). Maybe the link could redirect there, perhaps in anchor form, so some basic journal information can be provided by Wikipedia? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for pointing that out. The link appears to have been added in error, so I've removed it. But I think this (and Randykitty's comments above) underscore the need for the community to revisit the issue of adopting a proper notability guideline for academic journals. Psychonaut (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies WP:NJournals. James500 (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In my research, I found this about the series, but it is by a school newspaper. Dixon has messaged me on my talk page, and I've asked him about coverage similar to that link to meet WP:GNG. Redirecting is the temporary stance I have in mind right now, but I am hoping for further developments since it does not seem impossible for this journal to have a Wikipedia article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  This states, "Of the peer-reviewed film studies journals currently published in English the following, in reverse order of longevity, are among the best known: Film Quarterly, Screen, Cinema Journal, Film and History, Literature/Film Quarterly, Jump Cut, Framework, Camera Obscura, Film Criticism, Quarterly Review of Film Studies, Journal of Popular Film and Television, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, Post Script, East-West Film Journal, Film History, Quarterly Review of Film and Video, Canadian Journal of Film Studies, and Animation Journal." Still looking through sources. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is some very good coverage detailed in Jump Cut here, and I will quote at length: "Quarterly Review of Film and Video: Begun in the late 1970s as The Quarterly Review of Film Studies, the publication announced its intention of being an active review journal, paying particular attention to the critical examination of scholarship and criticism in the field. That goal changed and the publication quickly evolved into a usually thematically organized quarterly that seemed filled with typical to excellent conference papers on U.S. and Western European cinema. Owned by a commercial publisher who gradually went under in the mid-80s, the publication reemerged under the ownership of Harwood Academic, a Swiss firm. Announcing a new look and wider set of concerns while finishing off a backlog of issues, the late Katherine S. Kovacs became editor in 1989. Again thematic issues, often guest-edited, seemed the norm, though the overall intellectual quality increased. A wider range of interests, including TV and video and a broader conception of international studies seems indicated as well under new editor Michael Renov. Forthcoming issues include television studies, 'questioning the national,' gay and lesbian representations, and Black feminism and media." This is a pretty solid point in favor of notability, I think. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The coverage found by Erik seems to be independent and in-depth enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG. I am therefore withdrawing the nomination, or !voting against it. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A couple editors participating here have pointed to the fact that this journal is widely referenced on Wikipedia, and at least one of them has questioned why this wasn't mentioned in the nomination. I was aware when filing this AfD that there are dozens of Wikipedia articles which mention this journal. However, I was rather conflicted as to whether I should have brought this up in the nomination text, because I knew that a great number of these references were added by the journal's co-editor himself, using various accounts. (A sample: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. Elsewhere on Wikipedia he's been particularly prolific in inserting references to himself, his aunt, his wife, and his band. Besides the COI issues, many of his additions have been problematic on copyright grounds; see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20131007.) On the one hand, conflicts of interest and self-promotion aren't in and of themselves reasons for deleting the article, but on the other hand, their presence does mean that we should very carefully evaluate any arguments which rest on claims that the journal is notable because it is widely referenced here (or elsewhere). Now that some editors here are actually are making these sorts of arguments I suppose it's best to disclose the promotional issues. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't give a fly's fart about mentions on WP. That does not contribute one little bit to notability and should not be an argument for (or against) keeping this article. --Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Being someone who came out of film studies, I was surprised at this nomination. It is one of the best known journals in field, as stated in A Dictionary of Film Studies: [27]. For a long time it was based at UCLA, one of the major film schools: [28]. Many other sources list it as one of the journals central to the field or as a basis for other publications: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], etc. One can find many of the major figures in film studies publishing in QRFV, including Stephen Prince ([34] and Vivian Sobchack [35], both past presidents of the Society for Cinema and Media Studies [36] (it is significant that both see fit to listing publishing in this journal as one of their major accomplishments). See also [37], [38], [39], [40], etc. Finally, it is housed in over 450 world libraries according to WorldCat [41], is often listed on major library websites as a recommended or selected periodical: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], and is indexed by the major indexes: [47]. There is no way that "this journal's impact factor is negligible". Michitaro (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michitaro. If nothing else, I would give this journal the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the arguments of Randykitty and Michitaro are compelling. I am One of Many (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2014 (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.