Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Review of International Law and Politics


 * 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 of the debate was: I am this close to deleting this advert. There is enough of a majority for deletion to put this within my discretion, and the argument that 'countering systemic bias' means 'let non-English-language organisations violate WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising' I reject completely. However, the parent article International Strategic Research Organization has been kept after an AfD discussion, and Lambiam has made a decent point (in his second post, the first is WP:POKEMON), so I'm lead to close this as no consensus. Perhaps if it was merged with the parent article one it would be easier to clean up the advertising. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Review of International Law and Politics
This is published by the person who added this page. It is another vanity page from the person who brought you the pointless mess of a page Tayyibe Gulek. A Google search bring up no more than 13 hits for something of this title, with half of them being related to it being listed on wikipedia (or answers.net which copies everything on wikipedia.) A couple of the other hits are from the publisher's page about it, and that's about it. Also the categories it is listed in are numerous and completely bogus, "charities" for example? While it says it does accept articles in English, its cover picture makes it clear it is mainly a Turkish publication coming from Turkey, therefore I see no reason for it to even be on English wikipedia. Its publisher was the one who added it in the first place, and he has put up quite a few other vanity pages such as this. Vartan84 06:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika" gives more Google hits.


 * Delete This appears to be advertising hoping to capture WP traffic and credibility. It is a non-notable project that has not been around long enough to show any significance.  If it starts getting quoted by academic or main stream news publications then it can be reconsidered.  The complaint that it is not written in English, however, is not a proper argument for inclusion, as I understand WP criteria for inclusion of publications.  What really matters is whether it's notability can be verified.  In this case, it cannot, thus should be deleted.  Ande B. 06:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. No mercy for advertisements. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ande B. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone above me... --Dakart 20:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hold on a sec. What's going on here? There are plenty of articles on journals and magazines with non-English titles coming from non-English speaking countries, such as Acta Universitatis Szegediensis, Algebra i Logika, Alula, Angewandte Chemie, Annales de l'Institut Fourier, L'Année Sociologique, Anuario Filosófico, Cahiers de Topologie et Géometrie Différentielle Categoriques, Cahiers du cinéma, Ciência e Cultura, Le Cygne, Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, Dziennik Ustaw, Harefuah, Historische Sprachforschung, Historische Zeitschrift, Indogermanische Forschungen, Kailash, Kevätpörriäinen, Maarvon, Maayan, Mathematische Annalen, Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, Oikos, Positif, Publications Mathématiques de l'IHÉS, Revue des deux mondes, Scandia, Sternenbote, Tehnika Molodezhi, Teknisk Ukeblad, Les Temps modernes, Ylioppilaslehti, Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Physik, Zeitschrift für Physikalische Chemie, and Znamya. "Non-English title coming from non-English speaking country" is simply not an argument, OK? A possibly valid argument is that this is unverifiable, or lacking importance, or copyvio. See also WP:BIAS. --Lambiam Talk 23:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Lambiam, the point you are making was already stated. I believe the subsequent votes have been for valid reasons and not for the English language limitation.  It might be helpful if the nom Vartan84 used the strike out on that portion of the proposed deletion, though, just to make sure.  Ande B. 23:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I saw, "per everyone above me", thus endorsing the argument I don't accept. --Lambiam Talk 00:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This journal is one of the 1,629 serials currently monitored for inclusion in CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts. Among these it is one of the 274 that has "Core" status, the highest of three status levels. That is good enough for me. By the way, I know (by reputation, not personally) the organization behind this, which is a serious and respectable organization. --Lambiam Talk 00:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On this page: you can see that İlter Turan, Professor of Political Science and former Rector at Istanbul Bilgi University, one of the most prestigious universities in Turkey, and also President of the Turkish Political Science Association, member of the Editorial Boards or Advisory Boards of more than a few international journals, serves on the Editorial Board of this journal. --Lambiam Talk  06:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think having someone with a wikipedia page on your board qualifies you for a inclusion as well. Besides... a google search reveals allegations from other wikipedians that Ankaram is the same as Sedat Laciner, who created this page and a bunch of others about his organizations. I won't make the same accusion because I have no proof, but seeing as Anakaram updated the Laciner wikipage many times after it was created, the fact he created this page on Ilter Turan is not surprising. What is surpising though is the fact the Turan page is completely in capital letters and in serious need of improving its quality. All his bio states is that he is a professor of Bilgi University (founded 1994/6, I don't think such new schools would be that prestigious). Having published a few books does not make one famous either, quite a few of my college professors were published (and taught at American Universities more people would be familliar with) but I wouldn't add them to wikipedia for that. This is becoming an arguement about Turan's page instead of this organization, but I think I've shown through it that having some guy (Turan) with a wikipedia page who doesn't really appear to warrant having one on your board of some organization (RILP) few people have heard of does not make it deserving of a wikipedia page. Especially when considering the AUTO status of those who created the page. Vartan84 14:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. per above. Deepblue06 02:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the systemic bias out of Wikipedia.  Grue   14:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this version of blatant advertising stuffed full of links; but let an article on RILP come back if/when there's notability in the content. The point above about "core" status is heading an interesting way, so the author could helpfully cite impact factor (cf JAMA) or some heavily cited article to show it's not an issue of vanity.--Mereda 12:39, 9 June 2006 (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.