Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic University Law Review


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Catholic University Law Review

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not a notable student group. There are no reliable sources that show significant coverage; all sources are self published. Was also written by a COI editor.  Triplestop  x3  00:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a notable student group, and at least as notable as the dozens of other student-edited law journals with wikipedia entries. This article is supported by stronger citations than many of those entries. Consider the following existing pages: Alaska Law Review, Albany government law review, Boston College Law Review, Chicano Law Review, Syracuse Law Review, Rutgers Law Review, Maine Law Review, and Duke Law Journal, among many others under the category "Law Journals." I fail to see the purpose of the category if Catholic University Law Review is not to be listed. Stout1070 (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:OSE.  Triplestop  x3  02:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Listed at WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Catholic University Law Review enjoys inherent notability. Please see WP:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, before you respond. Stout1070 (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Question What is "inherent notability"? Don't think this figures in the notability guidelines? --Crusio (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As found on the WP:OSE page: "Inherent notability

While the Wikipedia community discusses the concept of "inherent notability", the concept is in limited practice through the use of precedent. As an example, generally speaking, any high school is deemed to be sufficiently notable for an article, but lower-level schools are generally not. While not a hard-and-fast rule, this is the status quo for Wikipedia inclusion and is consistently maintained through discussions of various schools, school districts, and their creatability and keepability (or lack thereof). Thus "inherent notability" is basically codification of OSE." Stout1070 (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up question The clause you cite speaks specifically of high schools (and I know many people disagree with that notion, but that is not the subject here). How does this apply to the CULR? The Catholic University Law School would be inherently notable, but as far as I can see, that would not apply for a journal published by it. Almost any scientific journal has some connection or another with a University, still, if not shown notable, they get deleted. Mind you, I'm at your side (I'm a member of WP:WikiProject Academic Journals and as long as any person who has been on a football field for more than a split second is deemed notable, I cannot see the problem with articles on lesser notable journals - although of course the obvious solution to this would be to tighten the WP:ATHLETE guidelines). OK, I'm digressing on my pet peeve. In any case, for this journal article to be kept, you'll need some indication of notability. Arguments that have been used in past deletion debates include: how often is it cited (one citation really is nothing here, we're talking hundreds/year), how many libraries world wide carry the journal, or, best of all, are there independent reliable sources available that discuss the journal? --Crusio (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I didn't expect this, but turns out the journal has an impact factor and although it is not stellar, for every journal included in the Journal Citation Reports there are several that are not included. ISI is very strict on including journals in their database, so the 104 that they list under "Law" should be considered the top journals in that field. That's evidence enough for me. Apart from that, article needs some cleanup, but that can be done later. --Crusio (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Appears to be a significant journal in its field. WP:OSE is nonsense -- "Other stuff exists" can indeed be a reasonable argument for keeping, particularly if similar articles have existed for a long time and been exposed to a large group of editors. That's called "precedent". Of course no two articles are exactly alike, but it is a useful comparison to see how well or poorly similar articles have been accepted by the community. Strikehold (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - academic journal, well known in the Legal community. Catholic University is not my favorite school, but so what? Bearian (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly- your opinion of Catholic University is irrelevant. The article pertains to a notable academic journal published by the Columbus School of Law. Stout1070 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Scholarly, peer-reviewed academic journal (according to Ulrich's Periodicals Directory). Many large institutions and law libraries carry this journal, and it is abstracted and/or indexed in several scholarly databases.Clifflandis (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.