Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Foreign Relations (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is that there is not the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources required to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Foreign Relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to be a very newly founded academic journal op-ed website, on the face of it the article is well-sourced, except none of the currently used references are actually *about* the journal website but rather are articles from individual contributors in other places and as we know WP:NOTINHERITED. No evidence of notability of the journal website itself is presented in the article or the references. Cameron Scott (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Sometimes something newly created becomes instantaneously notable. Sometimes something that has not been released yet is already notable (I received Time magazine today and its cover story is about a yet-to-be released movie, which also got already a lot of coverage here in France). However, the Journal of Foreign Relations (JoFR) is not one of these cases. Yes, notable people are involved. Yes, those people get cited/covered elsewhere and that coverage may even mention JoFR. That is not, however, the coverage that satisfies WP:GNG, WP:WEB, or WP:NJournals for that matter. (This is indeed not an academic journal, but even if one would argue it is, it doesn't meet those criteria either). No independent sources about this website, hence: not notable. --Crusio (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello to Wikipedia admins. I really would enjoy having the entry for the Journal of Foreign Relations kept. Is there anything I can do as far as adding or deleting information that will insure that the entry passes the smell test, so to speak? I'm still somewhat confused about how this entry meets the requirements for deletion and I would like to work with the admins of Wikipedia to insure that the entry is approved.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnllyman (talk • contribs) 07:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WP:NJournals and WP:JWG, that may help give you ideas. --Crusio (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep as I argued in the previous deletion discussion... The first version of the article was deleted only per copyright infringement (thought it was ironically submitted by the very holder of this copyright), this version does not infringe any copyright, ergo it is legitimate. Do not worry however, whether or not this page is deleted here out of the efforts of wikipedia mass multiplayer gamers it will be back within about four months when its notability becomes only reinforced... In the meanwhile, I'll meditate upon the sad attempts of a few to turn WP into Encarta or a conservative peer-reviewed journal. Cheers GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Article contains five references. One shows that the editor-in-chief contributes to the Huffington Post. Two are self-references. The other two are articles that have been published on the website and re-published on other websites. I can't anything in reliable sources independant of the subject. Edgepedia (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - promotion of a not wikipedia notable webcite. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete There are insufficient third party sources for an article. At some point, reliable sources may write about the journal and then an article could be written.  TFD (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for want of sources to establish notability. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 04:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete there seems little to demonstrate that this is more than a new news portal and no external and non-tangential 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. Rather than encouraging the article to be created and deleted for a third time, I would not be against the article being userfied if the contributor genuinely wishes to do more than promote this website. --Fæ (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge information from John Lockhart Lyman to this article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read both articles, you'll see that all info in the Lyman bio is already present here, too. And two sub-notable articles together don't make a notable one. --Crusio (talk) 14:08, 2 November 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.