Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Law in Domestic Courts 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   delete. No prejudice to anyone who wants to create a redirect at this title. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

International Law in Domestic Courts Journal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

New journal that seems not to have published anything yet. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  21:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete It doesn't seem to be notable - at least not yet. It doesn't seem to be completely independent either, as it is published as part of the Oxford Reports on International Law (http://www.law.gwu.edu/Academics/Pages/Journals.aspx). – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  01:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. As a plausible redirect to George Washington University Law School, this page is not eligible for deletion (WP:R). James500 (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So are you !voting keep or redirect??? --Randykitty (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not decided whether the article should be kept, merged or redirected, only that it should not be deleted. That would require further investigation for which I may not have time. James500 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A reply here would be useful. Deletion is not inconsistent with redirection, btw, as redirection essentially "deletes" the articles and deletion would still allow a redirect to be created. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We only do that if the entire page history (ie each revision individually) satisfies the criteria for revision deletion (WP:REVDEL). Please see WP:R#HARMFUL and criteria 1 of WP:R#KEEP (non-trivial page history). In practice deletion and redirection are mutually exclusive and we do not do what you are proposing unless there are exceptional circumstances. Redirection does not delete an article, it leaves the page history and categories intact. I should point out that my !vote didn't exclude the possibility of merger either. As for "A reply here would be useful": I'm sorry that I didn't reply sooner, but I am rather busy. James500 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we never look at every revision of a page when making a deletion decision, though we may check to see if there was a previous version of the article that lacked the deficiencies under discussion, if relevant. In this case, since notability is under discussion, what previous revisions say is irrelevant unless there is some startling evidence of notability buried in the revision history somewhere. (I checked and there isn't.)  Replied to the WP:R stuff below. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete automated redistribution of tables of contents by third parties is not in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is straight from WP:V -- if reliable sources don't discuss a subject, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it.  Period.  And seriously, James500, if you're too busy to investigate an article, you're too busy to have a meaningful opinion on whether it meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  (Never mind that WP:R doesn't enjoin the article from being deleted, because it's an article, not a redirect.)  Nha Trang  Allons! 14:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) This reliable source verfies the existence of the journal. Reliability and independence are not the same thing, and we do sometimes accept sources that are not clearly independent. I don't think it is plausible that a reputable university would invent a fictitious journal. (2) I have investigated to the extent that I have concluded that there is sufficient evidence to justify a redirect. One source is sufficient for that purpose: I do not need to conduct an extensive web search to draw that conclusion. I used the words "further investigation", and it should have been obvious that those words cannot possibly mean that I have not investigated at all. (3) WP:R#HARMFUL and #KEEP must apply to any page that could plausibly be redirected, because it would illogical for it to not apply as this case is a fortiori (ie stronger than the case the guideline provides for). Articles and mainspace redirects are interchangeable. The point is that anyone could boldly redirect that page right now, and, even by your logic, that would immediately bring WP:R into full force. (4) I think that your comments are total nonsense from start to finish and I would be grateful I you don't address me with comments like "And seriously, James500". James500 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously people, what is this nonsense about "the journal verifiably exists"?? Nobody ever claimed that this article was a hoax. It's just that existing is not sufficient to be notable (or even merit a redirect). Can we please keep the discussion on the issue of notability (which is what AfD is about)? James, if you're not a lawyer in Real Life (no need to answer this, of course), you should perhaps consider a career in that direction! Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you may have gotten off-track here. First, as  points out, no one claimed that this is a hoax, so your #1 doesn't apply - you seem to be looking at WP:DEL-REASON #6, while everyone else is talking about #8.  Second "sufficient evidence to justify a redirect" is irrelevant to the discussion, which is whether the article should be deleted.  Most potential navigational aids will justify a redirect. Finally, the application of WP:R to this discussion is quite a novel approach to article deletion and policy interpretation, and seems to be quite implausible. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is just complete and utter nonsense. The user who's signature reads "Nha Trang" did incorrectly argue that this topic is unverifiable. The application of WP:R to AfD is standard practice, that normally happens, where the article could plausibly be redirected. I have personally seen it in hundreds of AfDs. It is rarely questioned, and never on plausible grounds. You seem to be arguing is that redirection is not a valid outcome at AfD. That is nonsense. The rubric of AfD says that it is. My reading of WP:R#HARMFUL is that we redirect anything that isn't positively harmful as a redirect, which this isn't. In any event, where a non-notable article is a plausible redirect, redirection (without deletion) is mandated by criteria C1 and C4 of WP:BEFORE and, indeed, by our deletion and editing policies (and especially WP:ATD) which say that improving a page (in this case by redirecting it) is preferable to deleting the page. Plus which, deleting an article and recreating it as a redirect (without page history) would be completely absurd in the absence of some special reason for doing so, and we have a policy against doing things that are absurd (WP:IAR). And strictly speaking we don't delete articles or redirects, we delete pages, because from a technical point of view there is no difference the two: the page deletion user right doesn't distinguish. (On Wikipedia, "deletion" is a term of art that always refers to the use of the page deletion and revision deletion user rights that only admins possess. Redirection is not classified as deletion.) James500 (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2015 (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.