Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Law Review (2nd nomination)

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. Strange article - does not appear to be what it purports to be.--Kubigula (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Law Review (2nd nomination)

London Law Review (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This was nom'ed yesterday, but I speedy closed it because the IP who added it to the log did not provide a response to a note on their talkpage asking for a reason for deletion. They have provided a reason now, so, the following nom is a direct quote from User:217.43.201.174 on my talkpage.

It doesn't cite its sources, there is no evidence to indicate that the Lord Chief Justice is its patron, there are no citations, until recently the organisation's web-site said it was "shut down due to unpaid IT and development fees," and it's quite clear from the edit history that there's been an edit war in recent weeks between one of its operators and its detractors (read: "we hope all has been worked out"). Also, it hasn't issued in over a year. I personally ordered a subscription in May 2005 and I have received no journals since. It is essentially non-existent. Its inclusion in Wikipedia is therefore misleading and the article should be scrapped on the grounds of bias and/or notability.

After reading the nom, I say delete it clearly doesn't exist and does not have any sources to back up its assertion of notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Surprisingly to me, after searching, it seems this does not exist and/or there are no sources. Nothing to redirect to. Obina 20:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Undecided and prepared to be convinced. There are sources that appear to show that the journal exists (or intended to), such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Apart from the first one, Brunel University, none of these are particularly in depth and even the first is a press release. However, it does appear a number of respected institutions and their staff are putting their names to this. What is policy on journals and notability? Nuttah68 19:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'd say that it goes under the general notability guidelines at WP:N - in this case, it may barely pass (the last one mentions it a couple of times), but multiple sources are generally preferred to prove notability, of which there does not seem to be many - most mentions of the journal are referencing its moot court competition, not the journal itself. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the one basic rule for a journal is that it must at least actually exist and have an ISSN. It is has been planned far enough to meet WP:CRYSTAL, that would probably do as well. But something must be published or planned to be published. I simply can not find it in any library catalog or OCLC. I can find "City of London law review : journal of the Mansfield Law Club, City of London Polytechnic. 1974-1984" but that is clearly a different publication. I'd be glad to say keep if someone can show real existence. Nor has anything been heard of Andrew de Beaulac, the ed. in chief, since the 2005 press release. No reason not to write a new article if anyone ever finds out n some reliable place what happened to it. Personally, I tend to think the eminent legal sponsors got hoodwinked by some plausible students. DGG (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I concur with the above. Some serious claims are being made here, for example, that the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is its patron. This would seem to grant the alleged journal some credibility. If they can't be backed up, the article should go. Also, one would think that if the journal had any active staff (particularly those named in the article) they would have chimed in on this by now, especially given the fairly recent edit war which took place about a month back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casmat42 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 October 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.