Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groningen Journal of International Law (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. Sandstein 08:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Groningen Journal of International Law

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

Non-notable relatively new journal. No major changes since previous AfD, although the article now contains several "references" (mostly negligible announcements or listings and at least one "reference" that doesn't mention the journal at all). Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. On the talk page a handful of citations to articles in the journal is mentioned, but this is far too less to indicate any notability. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What dictates how many citations are "too less"? Several reputable books have referenced the journal:

Book1
Book2
Book3
Book4

Further, I find journals that have their own page with far less support than the GroJIL. What of this, or this, or this? What qualifies their work but not the GroJIL's? Kind regards, User9228 (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the sources given, I find no evidence of notability in the sense of either WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS. Calls to paper are routine, and the rest are at best an in-passing mention of the journal. Being cited ~120 times in GS is also well below the threshold for most law journals. By comparison African Journal of International and Comparative Law gets ~3000 googles cites, American Journal of International Law 81,000 cites, European Journal of International Law has 24,000 cites. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could this perhaps meet the requirements for keeping, because of the educational institution link? PaleoNeonate (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Nothing in policy/guidelines supports this sort of exception to notability. It could be merge to the University / Law School it's associated with, however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTINHERITED. And the article (and journal website) are pretty explicit about the journal being independent from Groningen University and not having any formal association with it (even though there may be personal ties to the university of people connected with the journal). --Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thanks for the explanations. After checking, it seems that this was deleted by consensus before, too, then recreated by an account that was blocked for being shared. PaleoNeonate (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI don't see notability here. Likely also a promotional article given the creator's account name. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the citations presented do not indicate notability - the ones which mention the subject are to pages that cite things published in the journal or to pages associated with the journal itself. What we need is coverage of the journal itself, not mere mentions of it. Granted, this is a lot longer than the previous version (a one sentence stub which only cited the journal website), but from a notability standpoint it's not significantly better. Hut 8.5 22:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 30 March 2017 (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.