Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The International Relations Review


 * 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. as the consensus says, existence is not notability ; we are not a directory  DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The International Relations Review

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Undergrad publication that lacks coverage in independent sources. No sign of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You caught the publication at a difficult time to defend itself from this - it is registered (and archived) at the Library of Congress, but the editors are in the process of re-sending the physical print copies, which were seemingly not received in the first mailing. It would be easy to point to this if the LoC had the archive up, but it is still in-progress. This would count as verifiable, permament, and independent. 130.64.67.14 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 
 * Keep, giving the IP visitor the benefit of the doubt. Chutznik (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But the ip editor has not pointed to anything that would make the publication notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry - I am the page creator. I can see the concerns about notability, but like he/she said above, the journal is in the LoC (in one form or another). Plus, you can tell they've kept the page (and the publication) up-to-date and professional. It may be on the fence in terms of notability, but it should always err on the side of keeping when it is a complete, well-kept and informative article. Removal would surely make W worse, not better. Afacini (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PRETTY and WP:NOHARM. And who is they, WP:COI? duffbeerforme (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My arguments aren't that it's "just fine" so leave it, they're that it's clearly an informative, beneficial article to Wikipedia. WP:BURO As an editor, you need to be subjective. You are lobbying for the removal of a useful article. Notability is borderline, so why lawyer it? "They" is what I assume the IP to be, the current editor(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afacini (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability has not been shown to be borderline, notibility is not here. Plus WP:ITSUSEFUL. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Sending something to the Library of Congress does not make it notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete. No evidence of notability. --DAJF (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  01:39, 2 May 2012 (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.