Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opinio Juris (blog)


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 10:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Opinio Juris (blog)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Opinio Juris ("An opinion of law") is a legal blog. This article is in the main sourced to the blog itself, with three references being examples of the blog being cited by Human Rights Watch. Other than this, we have no evidence of the notability of the blog. Opinio Juris is actually the title of the Michigan Journal of International Law, arguably more notable. The blog fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Websites,  and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Some mentions, but can't find enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel 5969  TT me 13:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thank you. Some comments, from my background as an international law scholar:
 * The Michigan Journal of International Law (not particularly read outside the United States) is a) not named 'Opinio Juris' (from what I see, they have a special section with only one publication under that rubric from 2017), and b) certainly not more notable than Opinio Juris (which has a global audience). One (imperfect) illustration of this is that the MJIL has around 900 followers in Twitter, in contrast to the 36k of Opinio Juris (blog).
 * A search in Google Scholar of "opiniojuris.org", which will necessarily understate the impact of the blog (because not all publication citation requirements allow for links), shows over 5k results (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22opiniojuris.org%22&btnG=).
 * An important factor is the prominence of the contributors to the blog: they include, quite simply, the leading international law scholars around the world.
 * I think it would be reflective of a U.S.-centric approach to notability to allow the U.S. blog 'Lawfare' to have an entry and not the (global) 'Opinio Juris'. Pugliese23 (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies - Opinio Juris is an imprint of MJIL. Which is arguably more notable than the blog. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not. I have been researching and working on international law for 15 years (in four continents) and I never came across it. Ask any international law scholar, anywhere in the world, even in Michigan. No one would dare compare their notability. I am still finding my way around Wikipedia, do as you please. I have found that the consensus tends to form around the person proposing the deletion. I am just telling you as I see it, and I truly am an experienced international law scholar: Opinio Juris is notable. Run the metrics, check Google results, it is incredibly popular, it has nothing to do with an imprint that last published something in 2017. Pugliese23 (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So help me out with this, because I'm not a legal expert and so am obviously too stupid to understand the facts. When the Michigan Journal of International Law says, "MJIL's OpinioJuris imprint collects expert short-form publications on key issues in international law produced by world-renowned scholars. The views and opinions expressed in these articles are those of the authors only." they actually are talking about a London bus, right? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not know why you try to ridicule my arguments (which I know to be very strong, again, whether or not I want to prove it (in response to Raymond Kestis), I have research and taught this field for a long time), but I nevertheless reply in good faith.
 * They are talking about an imprint that last published something in 2017 and no one really knows. For all I know, it only published those articles by a same author. I believe if you were to ask the MJIL editorial team they would promptly acknowledge it has been discontinued. I don't really care because this article is not about that imprint.
 * It is curious, however, that you take that single abandoned section of the MJIL website at face value but are not satisfied by the daily posts published at Opinio Juris, nor the endless citations in academic articles or references in the media.
 * The discussion below got interesting and I have nothing to add, because I am new. As an academic, I would assume citations in reliable journals should count as a criterion for notability. Pugliese23 (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are three things wrong with this:
 * 1. There is no way to verify if you are, in fact, an international law scholar. You cannot be confirmed as one unless you have proof that you are one.
 * 2. Google searches are not a reliable way to find out article notability.
 * 3. Opinio Juris has not attracted significant attention over time, at least according to reliable sources. Raymond Kestis (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pugliese. --NSH001 (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Per MrsSnoozyTurtle and my reply to Pugliese23. Raymond Kestis (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per explanation above. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Here are reliable sources that discuss Opinio Juris. The Manila Standard Today article provides nontrivial coverage, while the other sources are passing mentions. Can editors find independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Opinio Juris or a merge target per Deletion policy?  The article described Opinio Juris as a "well-known US-based legal blog", an "international law blog", and "a blog widely circulated among international law academics from around the world". The article further notes: "Opinio Juris is a US-based blog run by several academics in the field of international law. It is a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations. It was founded by Chris Borgen, a law professor at St. John's University Law School, who started the site with Peggy McGuinness of the University of Missouri Law School and Julian Ku of Hofstra Law School. The site debuted in January 2005."  In a footnote, the book calls Opinio Juris "the most important international law blog". The book further notes, "Of the whole of the extensive Opinio Juris blogroll, which covers all the most important international law blogs, only two blogs deserve credit for raising critical questions about the event ..."  The article described Opinio Juris as a "top legal blog". Here is the full quote: "In likely his most extensive interview since becoming ICC prosecutor-designate, with top legal blog Opinio Juris on May 21, Khan recalled a story from when he joined the British bar in 1992, when the senior lawyers interviewing him “without regard to Khan’s presence in the room, began discussing whether Khan looked more Pakistani or English.”" <li> The article described Opinio Juris as "one of the leading academic blogs on international law". Here is the full quote: "Academic Kevin Jon Heller reported on it on Opinio Juris, one of the leading academic blogs on international law."</li> </ol>There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Opinio Juris to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, the Manila paper is probably the best one of the bunch, but it's rather small. The rest are passing mentions. We'd need to see a story or review in the journals to even consider it GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It has thousands of citations in articles published by the most prestigious university presses. A quick Google Scholar search will show them. See, e.g., Anthea Roberts, 'Is International Law International?' (Oxford University Press; p. 262, p. 239, etc.)
 * News references, from a quick search:
 * The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/technology/on-the-web-a-fine-line-on-free-speech-across-globe.html
 * Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obamas-decision-to-turn-to-congress-on-syria-decision-is-fodder-for-debate/2013/09/04/e59aace6-14ca-11e3-a100-66fa8fd9a50c_story.html
 * Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114003839602575090
 * Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/outsider-khan-must-steer-war-crimes-court-through-choppy-waters-2021-06-15/
 * BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16029121
 * El Mundo (Spain): https://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2022/09/15/63239b33e4d4d8c91d8b4581.html
 * Pugliese23 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * None of these are substantial coverage, that's the issue, these are all trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One last question and I will check out of this discussion, just so I learn. Wouldn't so many references in the most read newspapers around the world and an infinite number of academic articles and books (including the Roberts book I cited, which is one of the leading studies of international law as an academic field) amount to significant coverage, which I believe is the standard?
 * If disciplinary blogs cannot be notable, fair enough. Pugliese23 (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The WSJ in particular has one line about the blog, in an entirely unrelated article discussing the current state of affairs of the bla blah. The BBC article is about a guy in Africa working with the International Criminal Court. The Washington Post article says Mr. XYZ wrote xyz in the blog, then moves on. One line about the blog in a thousand newspapers is still trivial coverage. We need something discussing it a length (or at least a little bit). The Manila paper is the best of these. Oaktree b (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All these are is really mentions of the blog, without anything discussing the blog, other than a passage of facts (from the blog to the article in question). Oaktree b (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

</li></ul>
 * Comment: Wikipedia SNG veterans, is there a reason why we look at the number of citations to see if academics meet (WP:NAUTHOR #1), but we don't to judge the relevance of scholarly publications? While I agree that the GNG isn't quite met, this seems to me like an influential medium in the narrow field of international law. I can't help but wonder how much in-depth coverage traditional journals receive. Any thoughts? Pilaz (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we've looked at citations in reliable journals in the past, some will just quote one another to boost the rating. It generally isn't the only thing used for an academic, they should have more than just a high citation number. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.