Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Mason Civil Rights Law Journal


 * 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. - Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

George Mason Civil Rights Law Journal

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

the current editors do not want a Wikipedia entry Shannonez (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; the wishes of the editors of a journal not to be in Wikipedia have little bearing on whether we document it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it's possible that the nominator meant himself as the editor (editor of the article, rather than the editor of the journal). Seing that is the only contributor to the article so far, he/she can request speedy deletion under WP:CSD. SWik78 (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let the AfD run its course: do not speedy as a G7 -- the subject may possibly be notable. If no editors other than the author show any interest in the article by the time the AfD comes to an end, then it can be deleted under this criterion. Snthdiueoa (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the journal appears notable and the article seems sound. I note that the article is primarily the work of one person who has declared a conflict of interest but those aren't reasons for deletion. Could benefit from some independent editing.Nick Connolly (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've flagged it for rescue: the article does seem to have potential, and if sufficient third party sources can be found, it should be kept. Snthdiueoa (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a hard one. Although it is not in conflict with wiki policy, it does open wiki up for liable as the content can be used to defame.  Due to the nature of this article it will also hold some level of bias.  I think the best measure here is to act with caution.Thright (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)thright


 * Keep, Notable and verifiable. Just because the main author, who claims affiliation with the subject on the article's talk page, doesn't want it, is not a reason to delete. This is not in conflict with policy as noted above. As it is written now I don't see any defamation. The chance that some editor could use it to defame or put in bias is a risk inherent to all articles. We should just proceed as we normally do and enforce current policy. KnightLago (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, is the article title correct? The website from the article has university in the title. KnightLago (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems factual and content appropriate.--Thalia42 (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to me that whether a law journal is notable can be determined simply by how often it's been cited in legal decisions, briefs, or in other law journals.  Perhaps even one citation in a published decision would be enough to make it notable; many citations in briefs might do the same, even if none of them ever made it into a published decision; and citations in unrelated law journals, in articles by people unrelated to GMU, might also be enough.  Anyone with a Lexis/Nexis account willing to do the search?  -- Zsero (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Google Scholar ( scholar.google.com ) has 6 hits for the journal. 2 aren't relevant and 2 are to articles in the journal. Two are citations (with links to further cites). That isn't very impressive for an academic journal but its enough. The journal is notable enough for occcasionally other people in other more notable journals to reference it.Nick Connolly (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources seem sufficient now. However, the article should be moved to George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal as that is the correct name of the journal (see the image on the article). Fosnez (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification (1) I'm not an editor on the Journal-- though that may change at the month's end. (2) THe correct name of the journal is George Mason Civil Rights Law Journal; moving this article Foznez suggests will only add inaccuracy to the problem.  (3) the current editors for the Journal do not wish to have a wikipedia page; (4) CRLJ has been cited by courts, including the Supreme Court, in decisions.  In the legal world, these are considered more notable hits than google or google scholar.68.105.180.8 (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) You are affiliated with the journal in someway. (2) The journal's website has the name as George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal. (3) The editors of the journal are irrelevant as to whether or not this merits an article. (4) We agree with you that real legal citations are better than Google. If you read above, you will see that someone asked for a Lexis search. That has not been done yet, so someone quickly ran a Google search. KnightLago (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2008 (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.