Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legislation and Policy Brief


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Legislation and Policy Brief

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article deprodded by creator. The subject is a relatively new journal with only 4 issues published yet. It does not appear to be indexed or abstracted anywhere and seems not even to have an ISSN. Not listed in such basic indexes as WorldCat, Library of Congress, or even JournalSeek. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:Ignore all rules. Everything that Crusio says is correct, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to delete this article.  It's useful.  Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 17:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing to indicate notability. "The Legislation and Policy Brief is one of fifteen publications edited by law students at the Washington College of Law." One of FIFTEEN publications, at that one law school? Do we need articles on all of them??? At a minimum, let's wait until the indexing organizations decide this one is worth indexing. --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge to Washington_College_of_Law. It doesn't seem right to delete this publication, as Andrew Gradman said, but I don't think that we should ignore rules in this case, since the publication doesn't seem notable. I'd rather just take the useful information from this article and merge it into it's publisher's article so the information is not lost, but Wikipedia's policy on notability is still followed. --Slon02 (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Significant publication. If we can have an article for every episode of South Park (and hurray for that, seriously), it's probably not going to kill the encyclopedia to have a dedicated page for every serious legal publication to come down the pike. Killing this would add nothing to the Wikipedia project and would reduce our information base. Carrite (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And don't forget all the minor sports people that had 10 seconds of fame. But: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete not a significant publication. It is possible that we would do better to have articles on all actually published periodicals, but we have decided otherwise, and a reasonable amount of consistency is desirable. We have decided analagously for almost all topics, but otherwise I cannot make a valid analogy between the relative importance across totally disparate subject areas  DGG ( talk ) 10:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – I searched every database I have access to. No one has ever heard of or cited the journal. Not notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2010 (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.