Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Foreign 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   speedy delete. copyvio of http://www.jofr.org/who-we-are/#.TqgeQI-Ao8m] I originally declined a G12 speedy because I could not find the copyvio, but Cameron Scott has figured that out.  DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Foreign Relations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to be a very newly founded academic journal. The author claims to be a manager for this journal, and the entire text is quite POV; it was also tagged as a copyvio, although at the present time the URL marked as the source doesn't have this content. Regardless of notability issues, this page will have to be rewritten 100% to stand as a proper article, so there's no reason to keep it even if we do find sources about it. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC) * Speedy delete under WP:CSD - also I should note that yesterday, the text was a copyvio as it was directly cut and paste from their facebook page - however I notice they have now deleted that text from facebook - so I have no idea where that leaves us in regards to copyright. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete under WP:CSD. --Crusio (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this may not be a copyvio but examining the website, there seems little to demonstrate that this is more than a new news portal and no external evidence of notability has been put forward. I can quote the WSJ or The Times on my blog, and relabel it as a "journal", it would still fail WP:WEB. Fæ (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Clear Keep, the journal is notable and comparable to E-International Relations which has a legitimate entry on wikipedia. It has respectable and notable contributors who are also entried on Wikipedia such as Deepak Tripathi and Iqbal Ahmed. It is clearly not a blog but a genuine web journal. Non experts should be careful with their votes GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: "The journal is notable". Based on which criterion of which notability guideline? It was formed very recently, so if there are already reliable sources out there confirming its notability, that's quite an achievement. --Crusio (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Answer: it is notable as per the credentials and notability of its high-profile contributors. I have already mentioned Deepak Tripathi and Iqbal Ahmed but there is also, at random, Ambassador David Shinn  or John K. Yi  who is referenced in prestigious The Diplomat. And I have just reviewed ten names out of the contributors at random so far... I could go across the whole list if you want though. Again, it is tragic non experts can cast out good contributions. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. I don't see any independent reliable sources. --Crusio (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You asked for it... One in the Huffington_Post one in the SIPA  Morningside Post  and one in the EastWest_Institute  plus other scattered third-party mentions   . Simply, it is easier to delete than to save an article. Deletion is a much lazier attitude, which require no extra effort, saving an article required the extra search for sources and wikiying. Much too often it seems, people want to process articles in the least effortful manner. Many deletions are explained by this. I see you are a neuroscientist, well keep in mind the List of cognitive biases that impede objective reviewing, and that Man, editors at large then, are  cognitive misers. If you ever had a rejected manuscript in your life, this wikipedia experience will help you understand it. Members of the Article rescue team try not to be cognitive misers. Cheers GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * None of those references is about this journal. This is really not the kind of coverage meant by our guidelines. As for your words about my working attitude, I've indeed had more than one manuscript rejected (and as an editor, I have rejected hundreds of them), so I do know how it feels to reject or get rejected. Of course, most of the times the rejections (of my articles) were justified and I just tried to learn from the experience and ameliorate my next manuscript. And, believe it or not, as an editor I have several times received thank you notes from rejected authors (I was often fortunate in finding good peer reviewers) thanking me for the constructive criticisms of their manuscripts (and in case you wonder, they were not meant sarcastically, as all those people later submitted other work to me). --Crusio (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With regard to the crack at "non-experts", Wikipedia has no preference for expert editors as articles have to be written for non-expert readers. However competence is required and that includes understanding why a website is not notable unless independent reliable sources can be referenced to demonstrate that fact. --Fæ (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete under WP:CSD Clear copyvio and should be deleted immediately. There is no version in the history without the copyvio, so if anyone wanted to save this article, policy is clear, it should be deleted and they should start from scratch. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:50, 26 October 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.