Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Journal of Religious Studies


 * 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 of the debate was COPYVIO. Someone should have tagged and bagged this rather than leaving it open. We don't 'vote' on copyvios! -Splash talk 23:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies
Wikipedia is not the place to promote a commercial magazine.


 * Speedy Delete: The Journal doesn't appear to be notable, and the included subscription information tells me this is a promotional piece, not encyclopedic content. --MJ( &#x260E; 20:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC).


 * Neutral: The article has made some markable improvements and has lost it's commercial nature; I am not in a position to furter judge the content or the notability, so I no longer vote for a delete. --MJ( &#x260E; 22:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC).

This is not a "promotional piece." The author merely thought to be thorough in description of the journal: will delete subscription information immediately. I believe the article is worthy of encyclopedic inclusion because of this journal's (JJRS) importance and influence in the study of Japan, religion, history, anthropology, and East Asia in general. Jb05-crd 02:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Subscription information has been deleted from the article. For anyone familiar with the study of religion and East Asia, the journal is indeed a notable one. Recommend not deleting. Jb05-crd 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now.  No opinion. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete copyvio from ; sorry for the people who've been trying to improve it in good faith, but I think you'd do better to start from scratch on a legal base. Haeleth 01:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyvio, per above. Good call. Dottore So 09:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyvio. Good catch; I missed that the first time round. --MJ( &#x260E; 12:05, 18 October 2005 (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.