Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journal Jurisprudence


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 13:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Journal Jurisprudence

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a new magazine (launching this month), with no assertion of notability. There seems to be little in the way of ghits, with 53 normal and zero news hits. Subject appears to fail WP:N, with a distinct lack of coverage in reliable sources and no indication of other notability. – Toon (talk)  21:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom – Toon (talk)  21:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 22:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 22:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, very unlikely to be notable as soon as its first issue is even published. Suspect WP:COI. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This appears to be a new academic journal, written by academics, not a mere magazine to be thrown away when read. There have been a series of discussions of existing academic journals (usually for those covering narrow specialisations).  As far as I recall they have normally been kept.  This is a new journal, so that coverage elsewhere cannot be expected yet.  The website implies that it is available to download, so that this is not a question of future events.  This is a harmless little article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - that could be used for anything - a "harmless little piece" of advertising doesn't make it notable enough to warrant inclusion - there are inclusion guidelines for a reason, otherwise this would just be a big combination of myspace and the Yellow Pages. This isn't an attack upon academic journals per se, any notable journal is welcome here, but the only reason this one is here is to give it some promotion and hike up its ranking on a Google search. There has most certainly not been significant coverage - or any other notability within its own field, and AfDs don't operate on precedents - every nomination is assessed on an individual basis, so any other (obviously more notable) journals being kept is of little relevance. This clearly fails our notability guidelines. – Toon (talk)  17:21, 9 September 2008 (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.