Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal

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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. a mere 6 hits in gbooks [1] including 2 from LLC Books which uses WP as a source. nothing in gnews [2]. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Bduke (Discussion) 08:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a stub, it's about a peer-reviewed journal, what possibly would be gained by deletion? Carrite (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM. can you provide sources to prove it meets WP:GNG? LibStar (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHYWORRY?]- As we move into week 2, I don't see a lot of people chomping at the bit over the need to delete this to defend the honor of Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't make it pass the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) and only found a few trivial mentions in third party sources. AIRcorn (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, that's the right criterion, simply being peer reviewed as Carrite says does not equate to notable. LibStar (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete - while I disagree with the policy, that's the word on the street. Bearian (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment. I'm leaning keep at the moment, but will freely admit that I have little to no experience in this topic area. That said, a peer reviewed journal definitely seems a notable topic. This is what my gscholar and gbooks searches have come up with: the journal has been cited 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 times. Gets a paragraph in this newspaper article and seems to be affiliated with all major Aus/NZ universities. Is this enough to prove notability of a journal? Honestly not sure at the moment. Input from people who have a better knowledge of this field than me would be greatly appreciated. I would also note that Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is only an essay (although it does seem much better than most notability essays). Jenks24 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whilst this is not the New England Journal of Medicine, a mere 8 citations is an extremely low number for an academic journal. LibStar (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.