Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Minority Issues


 * 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   keep. consensus appears to be that improvements during the AfD are acceptable TravellingCari  16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Scholar: St. Mary&

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

Non-notable Neutralitytalk 02:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC
 * Speedy delete as copyvio of . the Review may actually be notable, but they need to start over. Very close to a G11, promotional,  in any case DGG (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the author wrote the bio on the website and the article - why would you delete it? jennmarie25 (talk)
 * The article is tagged for deletion because it does not demonstrate the notability of its subject using independent third-party sources. We can see that you done a considerable amount of work on the article. However, it is not encyclopaedic in content or in tone. For example, subscription details for a periodical do not belong in Wikipedia. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

*Delete - Unfortunately, G11 promotional. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Ok, I added more facts, took away the subscription portion, and added external sources to back it up. What else can I do?  Thank you! jennmarie25 (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.209.15 (talk)
 * Keep - with the changes made to the article in the last day or so, my concerns are mostly removed. There is still some work to do, but we are on the way. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep now acceptable, like any law review. However, it still needs to be rewritten, for the use of extended quotation to make up an entire article is not encyclopedic style. I'll help, if necessary, because there should be an article.  DGG (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:07, 6 October 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.