Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethics & International Affairs Journal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 and rename. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics & International Affairs Journal

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Ethics & International Affairs Journal
Ethics & International Affairs Journal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM and WP:COI Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to this and its parent organization. Maintained by an IP associated with the organization. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Long_term_COI_spamming_by_Carnegie_Council
Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 06:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable journal. Long established title, held in hundreds of libraries according to WorldCat. Published for the council by the major scholarly publisher Blackwell. Indexed in all the standard indexes--I added them. (I had first to remove the link to their website, which is on the blacklist. I'll follow that up separately--totally inappropriate) -over-reaction by the nom to a round of what was seen as spamming--and some of it probably was. But this is a notable organization by any standards. . We don't delete for such COI--we just examine critically and rewrite as necessary. --incidentally, per MOS, title should be Ethics and International Affairs (journal). —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 15 November 2007
  • Comment Even if the COI is ignored, that article is devoid of any references. Handschuh-talk to me 09:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
needless to say, that is not a reason for deletion, any more than COI is. Worldcat holdings are 3rd party testimony to notability, and the indexing can be sourced from Ulrichs'. DGG (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Which is precisely why I offered a comment rather than say it should be deleted. Handschuh-talk to me 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing comes up in news searches [1] or books [2]--Hu12 (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note how often "© 2005 Carnegie Council" appears in those results. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject--Hu12 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
the way to read the GS list, is that it gives the articles published; in their journals--and then indicates how many other items cite them. The relevant factor for notability is not that they publish articles, but that tens of other people cite each of their articles. Of course the articles they publish have their own copyright, but they aren't the ones relevant for notability. It is the citing articles that are the independent evidence. (If in fact only their own journal cited their own journal, then indeed it would not be notable--to check this, look for some representative items and see what sources cite them, and you will see this is not remotely the case.) This is different from looking for articles about a subject. DGG (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per above. A lack or references is not a reason to delete an article, adding a references tag or adding the references yourself is always prefered.Travb (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2007 (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.