Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South African Judicial Education Journal


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

South African Judicial Education Journal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. No selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON". Article dePRODded by article creator without specific reason given, after adding two references (one a simple listing, the other a bio of the editor-in-chief. Journal only started this year and has published 1 (one) issue. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * delete - Fails WP:NJOURNAL. No in-depth coverage found on independent, reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 16:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not sure how this works, but creator of page (me) requesting that article be kept. Reason being that journal intent is of critical importance to research and debate of the judicial environment, and especially the constitutional court which is the highest court in South Africa. I do, however, understand the request to delete based on article being too new. This journal is, however, not a magazine but a journal filling a very unique role within the context. I should have kept the article in draft format originally. Apologies for dePRODing without reason - still learning how to respond to AFD process. I will respect the choice to delete should consensus be reached Wynlib40 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I have taken the liberty of refactoring your comment to be more in line with what is normally expected at an AFD.~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Draftify - With the journal being so new, I think it's a little soon to have an article about it. However, given the context in which this journal was founded and is being published, I have no doubt it will quickly (probably w/in 12 months) satisfy WP:NJOURNAL. Until then, it should be moved to draft space to give  time to work on it. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS. No objection to a draft however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure that draftifying is appropriate here. Draft space is not intended as an indefinite repository of non-notable stuff. Given that this journal only has published a single issue yet, it might be quite a while until it actually meets either NJournals or GNG. If at some point in the future that point is reached, I (or any other admin) would be happy to restore the current article. --Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2018 (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.