Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Bologna Law 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

University of Bologna Law Review

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation too soon. Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - Transwiki to Wikiversity. Michael Ten (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete not notable per nominatior. Denarivs (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to University of Bologna per NJOURNALS - "Dealing with non-notable journals". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to University of Bologna See WP:Deletion policy.  See also, WP:BEFORE A1, C1, and C4.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: To those !voting "merge" or "transwiki", please note that there is not a single independent source for this journal (two references are to the journal's own website, the third is a brief mention in the university's magazine. --Randykitty (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:V. As for Transwiki, I could use some wikilinks so that I know what that is.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But not everything that's verifiable needs to be in articles, otherwise each and every article would be swamped with trivia. As for "transwiki", it means moving the content to a different Wikimedia project, in this case Wikiversity. --Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't really use the word "trivia" in this context, this is an issue of WP:DUE. Raising spectres ("some object or source of terror or dread") of "swamped" is sensationalism.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not nearly enough independent coverage to warrant a standalone article.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Now that Transwiki is being discussed, I cannot see the usefulness of transferring this to different Wikimedia project. This journal is new. If it had some sort of track record of producing impactful articles I could see doing that. I am going to stay with merge to the University of Bologna article because it seems to be part of their academic program in the field of law. I am satisfied that it is University of Bologna affiliated. I think, in general, that merging is best considered on a case by case basis. In this instance, this seems to be a scholarly endeavor, and probably helpful to the law students who participate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But we only have the journal itself as a source. WP:V cited above says that in the absence of third-party sources we should not have an article on a subject. It doesn't say: just move material without reliable third-party sources to another article... --Randykitty (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) Google scholar is finding articles from the review. (2) Once the article is merged, it becomes a redirect, at which point it is University of Bologna that must satisfy WP:V#Notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1/ Google Scholar indexes all and every journal it can find, no matter whether obscure, notable, or even predatory. Just like Google aims to index everything on the web (which is why Ghits do not put any weight in the scale at AfD). 2/ My point above was: do you intend to add any info that is on the university website or related websites to the article on the university? If no, what makes you select this for inclusion and other information not? --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinions about Google scholar have no weight here. WP:BEFORE D1 says to check Google scholar for academic topics.  How did you miss this?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As for your demands as to how this is to be merged, had you merged the article yourself instead of bringing it to AfD, then you wouldn't have that interaction. Unscintillating (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not just an "opinion" about GScholar. Our own article (Google Scholar) mentions the fact that it strives to complete coverage. And just like BEFORE#D1 recommends to check Google, WP:GHITS warns that GHITS in themselves don't confer notability. Of course I check GScholar before taking a journal to AFD. NOT to see whether it is listed (because any journal that has a web presence is listed), but to see whether any of its articles have been noted (i.e. cited). If you look carefully, GScholar lists several articles that have been published in this journal, but not a single article has been cited even once. In all my years of experience with GScholar, this is something I have never seen before (usually there are at least a few citations from the journal to itself). As for your point about merging, I don't doubt for a second that the current article can be copy-pasted into the university article, but that was not my point. My point is that there's a lot of information on the university website and related sites. Given the verifiability of that info, do you propose to include all of that in that article? --Randykitty (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What you are doing now is filibustering, although I don't know why. If you don't know how to do a merge or don't want to be involved, others will do it.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Filibustering? Says the person who replies to reasonable arguments by evasion and not answering the questions that I pose. You're misinterpreting things and I'm just trying to explain them. That you don't want to hear anything is your problem. --Randykitty (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete And let be for a while. Poster child for WP:TOOSOON. Less than one year old, in a field as vast as the LAW. Not enough time to develop any reputation to qualify for notability. Tapered (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2017 (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.