Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Security Law 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. Not even published yet, and there's no inherent notability for law journals. Fences &amp;  Windows  21:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

National Security Law Brief

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Law journal that hasn't published its first issue yet, in fact it is still looking for a publisher. The creator made a credible claim that this paper is the first of its kind, but WP:NMEDIA says nothing about that. The creator also asserts that the paper's advisory board is considered authoritative, but that's the advisory board and not the paper itself. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Regarding the creator's claim that the journal is the first of its kind, this is covered in WP:NMEDIA as the law journal has "served some sort of historic purpose or [has] a significant history." The journal does not carry advertising, nor is its content trivial. With regard to Blanchardb's argument that the journal's advisory board is authoritative but not the paper itself, I would respond that no paper itself is authoritative, but that a source's authority stems from its authors and its editors. Lastly, as other Law Journals are included on Wikipedia, the NSLB should be included in the interest of completeness. MaxIdle (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —  Jujutacular  T · C 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether other law journals have articles is a WP:WAX argument, and isn't very persuasive. Although there are some categorical cases of inherent notability, in most cases, the notability of an article stands or falls on its own merits, not by comparison to others.  As a side note, I'm not aware of any other law journals that have not yet gotten to the stage of actual publication that have articles. TJRC (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice for re-creation if and when it becomes notable. At the moment, it's just a good blog by law students (and not the first of its kind; see the Georgetown Security Law Brief).  If it starts publication, and does so in such a way that it is notable (e.g., publishing contributions by noted authorities; being cited in significant cases, etc.), re-create it.  I take no position on whether being the first law journal to limit itself to national security issues is of sufficient historic import to, in and of itself, convey notability.  Right now, when publication is just a plan, it is not the first anything.  TJRC (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice for re-creation in the future. It doesn't even exist yet, so it cannot be notable. Misses all criteria of WP:Notability (academic journals). There are many student-run law journals, the only reason anyone can say this is "the first in the nation" is the specialized subject (and even that seems to be an exaggeration, see above). --Crusio (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Georgetown Security Law Brief is not student-run. NSLB is the first student-run national security law journal in the United States. Electric67 (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the notability guidelines for academic journals, and I feel the NSLB currently satisfies two of the three guidelines. Guideline (1) states that "[t]he journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area."  The NSLB advisory board is made up of authorities in the field of National Security law and cybersecurity, so it follows a fortiori that the journal is considered to be influential in its subject area.  Guideline (3) states that "[t]he journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history."  As the first student-run student-run national security law journal in the United States, the NSLB has a significant history (source).  It is not an "exaggeration", as Crusio stated, as the Georgetown Security Law Brief is not student-run.  Further, the print publication is only one (forthcoming) portion of the Brief.  The blog is also considered part of the Brief, so Crusio's argument that the Brief "doesn't exist yet" is inapposite.  The blog portion of the Brief has been functional since early September, 2009. Electric67 (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So what you're telling us is that the journal is considered reliable by its own staff? --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, sir. The fact that experts in the national security field sit on its advisory board makes the NSLB authoritative, as they act as auditors of the information the Brief produces. Electric67 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals) for a discussion about this. Having "heavyweights" on the editorial board (which really don't even count as "staff") does not contribute anything to the notability of a journal. The NSLB does not fulfil any of the criteria of WP:Notability (academic journals). Criterion 1: Some "authorities" on the editorial board does not equal "reliable sources" in the Wikipedia sense. Criterion 3: It's really a stretch to argue that this being the first student-run journal on this speciality equals "a historic purpose" or constitutes "a significant history". As yet, the journal does not have any history whatsoever (whether one includes the blog's 2-month "history" or not). Finally, being student-run hardly rates as "historic purpose". --Crusio (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What you've been telling us is that, because a few heavyweights are involved in the NSLB, it should be regarded as authoritative. The problem is that Wikipedia is not concerned about should, no matter how strong an argument justifies it. What you have to show, if you want to play the authority card, is whether the NSLB is already considered authoritative in its own right by people with no involvement whatsoever in its publishing. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate to pile on here, but I really don't buy the argument that, because the NSLB's advisory board includes authorities in the field of national security, the NSLB is somehow authoritative by contagion, and therefore notable. Notability is not inherited.  WP:NOTINHERITED.  Assuming without agreeing that the NSLB's advisory board's members are authoritative or notable, that assertion does not mean that the NSLB is authoritative or notable.   That issue should be decided on its own merits.


 * I'll also note that, of the four advisory board members, only one, Michael W. Carroll, has a Wikipedia article. That's not the be-all and end-all, of course; many individuals who are authoritative and who meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not yet have Wikipedia articles.  But it makes the inheritance argument even weaker, I think, because there's been no evidence that the Wikipedia community agrees with the premise that all of these board members are authoritative and notable.


 * Finally, the inheritance claim is further weakened by the fact that every NSLB advisor is a faculty member of the Washington College of Law that will presumably someday publish the NSLB. This is not an indication that the NSLB has attracted these advisors by virtue of its own authoritative status.  Rather the opposite, it indicates that the NSLB has not yet demonstrated enough authority, or likelihood of future authority, to attract advisors outside its own parent institution.


 * In sum, I'm still holding to my Delete position expressed above, unless and until the notability of the NSLB itself (not that of one or more of its advisors) can be demonstrated. TJRC (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2009 (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.