Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architectural History

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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural History

I'm not sure that this is a notable publication, seems just to be a ~~student~~ trade magazine. The PROD was removed with very minimal explanation. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 18:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the prod as it does not seem to be a clear cut case. I cited the same reason I removed the speedy tag. At this point I am not going to vote either way, I want to see what sources the original author brings to the table. A quick googling seems a bit hit and miss here. Bear in mind this is a new article only created today. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my essay on trade publications.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a "trade magazine"; it is a leading academic journal on the history of (mainly British) architecture. It is available on JSTOR, an important online academic resource in the UK. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge with Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain? Both articles are stubs and if expanded in the future, it can be broken out into its own article again. Proving notability is going to be bit hard at this point to justify having a separate article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep academic journal available on JSTOR. -Atmoz (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Established academic journal. No merge. Useful and important on its own (btw, listed in Wikipedia:List of missing journals/A-C). --Edcolins (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--it is an established academic journal, accessible under JSTOR, in the business a long time, etc. I don't see any reason why this should be deleted, or even merged. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I now feel keep is applicable, possibly this should be closed early as speedy keep, or by applying WP:SNOW? Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as major peer-reviewed journal in major libraries, published by major association, covered in the indexes for the field.DGG (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per excellent points raised above. -- Banjeboi 18:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to their website The Society's principal publication is Architectural History. Published each autumn, this is one of the world's leading periodicals in the field. Its been around awhile, and seems quite notable to the architectural studies. Dream Focus 10:03, 8 March 2009 (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.