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-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

M/F (journal)

M/F (journal) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Obscure NN periodocal, fails the GNG going away. Every source listed is primary (presuming, mind, that an "official website" created 34 years after the publication folded can be called that), including the ones supposedly bolstering the less-than-grammatical assertion that "many scholars and readers have regarded the contributions of m/f in feminist discourse." No substantive coverage of the subject found.

Article created by an editor with quite a few such articles on periodicals lacking sourcing or notability, several of which already have been forcibly removed to draftspace, deleted or are at AfD/prod. Ravenswing 21:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The MIT Press book shows that it was anything but "obscure", though the article didn't include it until a few minutes ago. Pam D 08:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The MIT Press book was edited by two of the editors of M/F; I'd say they had no little stake in praising how influential they believed the journal to be in putting together a collection of its issues for commercial resale. In any event, of course it's not an independent source, and cannot be considered to bolster the subject's notability. Ravenswing 13:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment:. You're right that the book wasn't independent, but there are independent reviews of the book, e.g. Refractory Girl No. 41 pp. 42–. If a collection of essays from the journal can be shown to be notable, then the journal probably is, too. pburka ( talk) 16:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• I have cited another independent review of the book. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The review found by Phil Bridger calls m/f a "seminal feminist journal." At the very least, The Woman in Question is notable, but I think it makes more sense to cover the anthology in the journal's article rather than vice versa. pburka ( talk) 03:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Please note the new source I have added (Diana Leonard paper), for a paper discussing this journal. Pam D 07:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment on article title: If the article survives this AfD it should probably be renamed to M/f (journal) with a {{ lowercase title}} to force the title to display correctly. Pam D 07:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep new sourcing establishes notability. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 21:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Now adequately sourced.-- Ipigott ( talk) 07:24, 21 May 2021 (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.