Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law journals india


 * 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   keep. Nakon 04:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

List of law journals india

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

List of unlinked articles with no proof of notablility with regards to them. Amortias (T)(C) 19:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Mostly non-notable journals with a bunch of external links to the journal homepages. After deletion, a redirect to List of law journals could be appropriate. --Randykitty (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep at List of Indian law journals or merge and redirect to List of law journals, which is the parent list. Law journals are collectively notable and therefore satisfy LISTN. Moreover LISTN says that we can spin off daughter lists without regard to notability. Whether any of the journals are individually notable is utterly irrelevant. Indeed compiling a list of notable members of any set of things automatically violates WP:CIRCULAR, because it is a self-reference that constitutes inherently unverifiable original research (you will never find a reliable source that says, in express words, "Journal X satisfies the Wikipedia notability criteria" which is what would be needed as a minimum). What matters is whether the group is collectively notable. The only relevant issue is whether the parent list has become too long. Since this is a plausible redirect, there are no grounds for deletion (WP:R), whether or not there may be grounds for merger. At any rate, the arguments advanced above are manifest total nonsense that completely fail to understand LISTN and NOR. There is WP:SNOW chance of this being deleted on grounds of notability. James500 (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

These are well known law journals in India and most of these are published for more than 5 decades. Intlawind (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy close - it's already been merged. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As far as I can see, it has simply been moved to List of Indian law journals. That's grammatically better, of course, but it is always confusing if articles get moved during an AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep per James500. Now Wikified somewhat; List of law journals contains only the journals with linked articles + a List of Indian law journals to List of Indian law journals, which now lists the full twenty or so, linked or not. -Arb. (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks like List of law journals does not accept redlinked entries - is this an issue with notability or with ownership? Notable journals should allow to exist in redlinked form until an article is created. Samsara 08:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Appropriate list. This sort of bibliographic listing is within our scope.  DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:43, 28 February 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.