Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-International Relations


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  19:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

E-International Relations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article was PRODded with reason "At first appearance, this looks like a well-sourced stub. However, most references are to people's CVs, confirming that they published on this website. The only other reference is to the website itself. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NJournals, or WP:WEB." De-PRODded by an editor who added a reference to a "links of interest" page at the website of the London School of Economics as proof of notability. As this is obviously not sufficient, I'm bringing this to AfD. Not notable, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And what of the other 6 references to the website being cited by such publications as the wall street journal which I have also added to my revision of the article? I think they, in combination with the LSe link and the other 3 links to universities recommending material on e-IR to their students make for clear notability. I think the editor above is taking an unduly restrictive line which is in ignorance of the facts. This appears to be a one person driven affair - and I would move that more opinion/input is necessary. I found all these links in 25 minutes of searching online - I dont think i had to look very hard to find e-IR's notability! If I keep looking im sure I'll find dozens more links to other 3rd party publications/organisations referencing the website Iro008 —Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment As far as I can see, none of the references added do anything to confirm notability according to our usual standards: most are trivial, none are substantial. As for the "one person driven affair", it should be noted that the only edits of Iro008 to other articles than the present one have been to insert references to e-International Relations. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing my devotion to making sure e-International Relations has a good wikipedia entry. Though I have contributed to other articles on wikipedia - via this account so look harder before you accuse me of single minded advocacy. I used the website through my university degree after a proferssor pointed it out and I want to make sure it is represented well here. I'd also like to point out that from a basic google search, there are about 30 wikipedia articles on political issues / politics academia that have substantial references to articles from e-International relations - very few made by me (3 by me I believe) - so if the website is not notable as the editor above says, you had better start working harder to make wikipedia conform to it's own rules! Iro008 —Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If no one else steps in I think this is a clear case for no consensus, and with that, this 2+ year old entry should remain Iro008 —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC).
 * AfD discussions are usually up for a week, just so you know. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Considering the fact that the organization has been around only since 2007 (and incorporated as an NPO since 2011), the fact that it has been referenced by multiple notable publications (Wall Street Journal, The Brookings Institute, and the London School of Economics is enough to fulfill WP:NJOURNAL on point #2. It really doesn't matter that the author of the article has a strong interest because done he/she has done an excellent job of providing reliable sources to show evidence of notability of this publication. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment' For the purposes of NJournal#2, we generally need hundreds of such citations before we accept a journal as notable (unless, of course, one or two of those notable publications had written in-depth about the journal). A hundful of citations to articles in a magazine/journal doesn't cut it. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure that I read "hundreds" anywhere in the notability criteria. I would be reluctant to support keeping the article if the citations were in unreliable or local publications, but they are not.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is. Compare this to WP:PROF. There, too, we judge an academic notable if his works have been cited, but only if that has been done hundreds of times. Unless, again, there are articles about her/him. The whole difference lies in the distinction between a "citation" and an "article about something/somebody". The latter is highly significant. The former isn't. Every academic will have been cited at least a few times by reputable academic journals. Yet we don't take that as evidence for notability, unless the number of citations indicates that the person has had a significant impact on his/her field of study. NJournals was modelled in part on PROF (I know, I started NJournals and the edit summary of that first edit actually specifies this... :-) Even disregarding NJournals, GNG does not accept in-passing mentions as evidence of notability either. None of the sources provided for eIR actually discusses the publication, they just cite an article that appeared in eIR, which is something very different. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since e-International Relations commissions it's articles, I think citations of articles (of which there are dozens of reputable examples easily available) go to notability of the publication itself.Iro008 —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC).

Following up from my last point, although these come from e-IR itself in the sense that e-IR has compiled them, these quotes are from leading IR academics and a diplomat - which expands on my point made above (again sorry im new to wiki if i have done this wrong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.80.94 (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with I Jethrobot. to Keep. I don't think the comments by Guillaume2303 that references to the Wall St Journal, Brookings, and the LSE (etc..) are 'trivial' and not notable are accurate. I'm not sure what else a journal/magazine needs to establish notability? If Guillaume2303 would like to establish that it might be helpful Iro008 —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Weak Delete but open to keep I just don't see sufficient coverage from reliable sources that are significant if that could be overcome perhaps it should be kept.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I’m an academic and this website is certainly notable to me. I have it on 4 of my course kits and consider it an important resource in an era when journals are becoming too expensive for institutions and often too ivory tower inward looking for any use in teaching. e-IR has become in a few years a very well known and reliable resource in the field of international relations. While you guys might not think it is notable according to your incomprehensibly difficult to follow and complex wiki rules, my community (IR academics) is fully behind keeping this on wikipedia as it helps make wikipedia more academically reliable as a resource itself. And that is important also. Thanks (I don’t use wikipedia much so sorry if I have done this wrong!)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.98.16 (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)  — 89.242.98.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Well this has been up for more than a week... No consensus? I think notability is at least defendable here. Iro008 (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2011 (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.