User talk:JPCALLAHAN87

Your submission at Articles for creation: The University of Chicago Business Law Review (December 20)
 Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:The_University_of_Chicago_Business_Law_Review Articles for creation help desk] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by MaxnaCarta was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Unfortunately this journal is insufficiently notable to warrant a standalone article. Chicago Law already has a stand alone article for its law review. A sub-review is not sufficient. There is no significant secondary coverage of this sub-law review demonstrating it meets the general notability guideline. I turned to the essay at WP:NJOURNALS for some guidance, and see not criteria there that this article topic meets. Indeed, I concur that if an academic journal cannot be demonstrated to be impactful via reliable sources, we should probably not have a dedicated article on it. Given there is no demonstrable impact in reliable sources, I am rejecting this article outright. The article has also been created by an an editor with COI being the editor of this journal.

MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Good Morning,
 * Is there any way to appeal this decision? I believe the assumptions that underlie your decision may be incorrect.
 * For one, The University of Chicago Business Law Review is not a “sub-journal.” The University of Chicago Business Law Review is a separate publication. It is recognized as distinct by The University of Chicago Law School (See UChicago Law Journals) run by its own distinct editorial board with no overlap in membership (Compare UChicago Business Law Review Masthead with UChicago Law Review Masthead), maintains its own ISSN (2833-1524), and covers a subject area which Wikipedia has seen fit to publish pages for Business Law Journals at other schools (See, e.g. Yale JREG; Harvard Business Law Review; Columbia Business Law Review). Furthermore, the point of not allowing “sub-journals” from the UChicago Law School is also not true, as UChicago Law’s other two law reviews – The Chicago Journal on International Law (CJIL) as well as the University of Chicago Legal Forum both have their own article pages, as noted in the links provided above.
 * The argument that a Business Law Review gives “no significant secondary coverage” is also undermined as seen by the other school’s Business Law Review Wikipedia pages despite those schools each having their own primary law review. The University of Chicago Law Review provides no specialization in Business Law, and any overlap that may happen is purely incidental. This is why The University of Chicago Law School saw fit to allow us to start this Journal as a separate and distinct publication, and why the Associate Dean of the Law School Tony Casey (who himself has his own Wikipedia Page) is our principal Faculty Advisor (See UChicago Business Law Review Masthead).
 * Finally, the point that our publication is not impactful indicates that there was no research done in to the substance of our publication. In our first publication we have published pieces from Nobel laureate Oliver Hart and renowned economist Luigi Zingales (both of whom are sufficiently impactful to merit their own Wikipedia page). (See "The New Corporate Governance") We have also been considered sufficiently impactful to publish many of the top scholars in the field. The second most cited Corporate Law Scholar in the Country, Lucian Bebchuk of Harvard Law (who also is significant enough to merit his own Wikipedia Page) (See "Competing Views on The Economic Structure of Corporate Law"); as well as the sixth, Jill Fisch (See "Purpose Proposals"); seventh, Stephen Choi (See Just Say No? Shareholder Voting on Securities Class Actions"); tenth, Marcel Kahan (See "Endogenous Choice of Stakes Under Common Ownership"); and sixteenth, Edward Rock (See "Easterbrook and Fischel on Corporate Purpose") most cited Corporate Law Scholars in the Country (See 20 Most-Cited Corporate & Securities Law Faculty in the U.S.), have considered our publication impactful enough to trust us with publishing their articles. This trend has continued as we are publishing the third most prolific Corporate Law in the Country, Stephen Bainbridge, this winter.
 * I understand that at first glance our page may have been duplicative, but as indicated here we are certainly not repetitive (Otherwise other Business Law Reviews should be disallowed), unprecedented (Otherwise other UChicago Law Reviews should be disallowed But see CJIL & Legal Forum), nor insignificant (See The University of Chicago Business Law Review Volume 1 re: repute of authors). While I am the EIC of this Journal, any member of the UChicago Law faculty can verify the truth of matters asserted, and there is no unsupported assertion in the Draft Article, hence the overabundance of citations and hyperlinking that I used to create it. For these reasons I would respectfully ask for reconsideration of this decision, and if not then what appellate procedures may be taken.
 * Thank you for your time and consideration.
 * James P. Callahan Jr.
 * Editor-in-Chief, The University of Chicago Business Law Review
 * Email:  [mailto:jpcallahan@uchicago.edu jpcallahan@uchicago.edu]
 * Phone: 312-720-1787    JPCALLAHAN87 (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, JPCALLAHAN87. There is no way to "appeal" a decision like this on Wikipedia, but that's because, for the most part, we don't do things so formally around here. If you disagree with someone's decision, you talk to them about it and (ones hopes) reach some kind of understanding.
 * I think you misunderstood 's points regarding significance. He wasn't saying that the U of C Business Law Review doesn't cover important things in important ways. On Wikipedia, the terms "notable" and "significant" are jargon: something is "notable" (meaning: eligible for a Wikipedia article) if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent from the topic. Editors disagree on what constitutes significant coverage, but it is more than passing mentions: I generally tell people a decent-sized paragraph that focuses directly on the article's topic is significant. Regardless of how important the real-world things that this journal has done may be, if you want to convince people that it is worthy of a Wikipedia article, you will need to find and provide the sources necessary to demonstrate its notability and add them to the draft. At that point, you can just re-submit it and an editor will take a look at the updated article to see if it now passes the criteria.
 * Finally, on a different note, I have a question for you: are you being paid or compensated in any other way for your edits here? I recognize that you work for this journal, but are you making these edits during company time, or are you just doing this on your own? Please be aware that per Wikipedia's terms of service, you are required to clearly disclose if you are being paid for your edits. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Compassionate727, thank you for the clarification. I am not being paid, I am a student who serves as the EIC, and my role as such is purely voluntary (as in I do not even receive academic credit for my work in this role). If I am able to add independent references by the authors we have published to their publications in our Journal, would that suffice for independence? JPCALLAHAN87 (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am comfortable JP disclosed their COI. I have worked on a review, and it is voluntary, so no issues there.
 * Regardless, I am not convinced of this draft. It is merely a regurgitation of some primary sources and a list of articles. Go and check out Harvard Law Review as a good example of an article on a law review. That article has sufficient resourcing to comprise a full article. I do not see any secondary coverage of the Chicago Business Law Review (CBLR) to justify a stand-alone article. It would be better served as a paragraph at University of Chicago Law School. Not every law review gets an article, even when published by a school as prestigious as Chicago Law School. While age is not a red line by any means, it is unlikely a journal so new has had sufficient impact to warrant its own article. This is the issue with editing on something with which you have a strong conflict of interest - the journal is incredibly important to you, but it may not yet have been sufficiently noticed by the world at large to warrant an article.
 * In terms of "appeal" there is not one as such. Though, I did outright reject instead of decline on the very first go, which may have been too hasty.
 * I am happy to have my decision reviewed by other AFC reviewers.
 * Personally, I think we should just create a paragraph on this under a publications section of UoCLaw's article and I can create a redirect to that section. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The University of Chicago Business Law Review
Hello, JPCALLAHAN87. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The University of Chicago Business Law Review, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The University of Chicago Business Law Review


Hello, JPCALLAHAN87. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The University of Chicago Business Law Review".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)