Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & Policy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:13, 27 March 2010

Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & Policy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable secondary journal from a law school which has not yet published an issue; when it does, it'll be online, not in hard copy. Fourteen Google hits, including Wikipedia. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article. I have an interest in the article as a member of the organization it is about. I have added a number of additional references to the article to prove that it is notable. The fact that AJELP is an online journal should not make it non-notable, if anything it should make it more notable as there are very few purely online journals and it is predicted that they will become the norm soon. [see http://faculty.law.pitt.edu/hibbitts/lastrev.htm]. Wikipedia has a whole article dedicated to the idea of [online magazines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_journal]. If anything it is ironic to make this argument on wikipedia. Moreover, it clearly meets [wikipedia's general notability guidline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#cite_note-0]. It has received both ["Significant coverage" http://uanews.org/node/30194]. The [UA News http://uanews.org/about] Article is reliable and independent. Even though it is produced by the University that AJELP is affiliated with, it is run by editorially independent professionals and it is well established. Moreover, the article contains a number of insignificant coverage references from reliable and independent sources that support the article's facts.ArizonaLaw (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Note - The UAnews is a University newspaper Shadowjams (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Journals, particularly online only, are not notable without outside coverage. Secondary journals at law schools may be notable, but only if there are external reliable sources that indicate the journal, as opposed to a mere citation. Moreover, a new, unpublished, and online secondary journal is not. For those unfamiliar, most law school journals are published by students, with oversight by the facility. I am not sure about this journal, although most are, with some exceptions. While this does not itself make it non-notable, it provides some context. Shadowjams (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Student-run environmental journals are cropping up at law schools all over the country. Some of them are better-established than others and even the best established journals (see, e.g. Tulane Environmental Law Journal) have had little or no independent media coverage. This makes it difficult for any journal, even the most legitimatem to achieve the notability standard set forth in the deletion criteria. My own University of Washington Law School is working to establish a student-run environmental law journal, although it hasn't left the ground yet. I see no reason why AJELP should be removed, especially in light of the national trend. 24.18.227.247 (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Delete. No sign that it passes any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are hundreds, if not thousands, of online-only journals and many of them have become notable in time. However, very few journals, if any, are notable even before they have produced a single issue. This one is no exception and article creation has been very premature. --Crusio (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Student run journals of this sort are indeed becoming much more common, but I do not see how that makes them notable. some will be, but there is no way to judge the importance of a journal like this until it is at least published. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is not a notable journal on it's own (at least yet), I would rather see this merged with an article on the law school itself if it exists. If not, ArizonaLaw could probably create on, and this could become a section of the article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Thanks for the suggestion Headbomb. Would you be willing to help me merge this with the law school's article? I am quite new at wikipedia article writing and would greatly appreciate any help you would be willing to offer. Perhaps this would appease all those calling for the article's deletion.

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 *'''Delete''' Student run journals of this sort are indeed becoming much more common, but I do not see how that makes them notable. some will be, but there is no way to judge the importance of a journal like this until it is at least published.   '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 22:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 *I agree that this is not a notable journal on it's own (at least yet), I would rather see this '''merged''' with an article on the law school itself if it exists. If not, ArizonaLaw could probably create on, and this could become a section of the article. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 01:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
+:* '''Question''' Thanks for the suggestion Headbomb.  Would you be willing to help me merge this with the law school's article? I am quite new at wikipedia article writing and would greatly appreciate any help you would be willing to offer.  Perhaps this would appease all those calling for the article's deletion.