Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Foreign Relations (3rd 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 speedy delete. and salt; if it becomes notable in the future, ask me for unsalting. when there are good 3rd party RS references to it. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Foreign Relations

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

The article fails to address WP:WEB. A quick check of the articles about contributors shows most of these to be problematic in terms of notability, though Richard Falk would seem to have a good case. However this confuses the notability of contributing authors with the notability of this news portal and no evidence has been provided apart from inherited notability. This is the third AfD within 2 weeks and the article has been created five times, should it fail AfD I recommend salting until such a time as a draft article is seen to unambiguously address these issues. Fæ (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I don't see any reason to go through an AfD all over again. The second AfD gave a clear consensus and the two re-creations have exactly been that: no addition of new sources, no new evidence of notability. Still fails WP:WEB, WP:NJournals, and WP:GNG. Salting indeed seems appropriate. --Crusio (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello....I've added several external links to demonstrate that the Journal of Foreign Relations is considered a notable website, and as well a notable entry. What links shall I add additionally? There must be a way to address your concerns with the entry versus just deleting it. Johnllyman (talk) 08:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Johnllyman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. It's been added and deleted twice, the second time being just late last month. Third time is usually not a charm in these instances. I notice that you submitted this to AfC but didn't really wait for it to be approved before posting an article. I highly recommend that if this is deleted a third time, you focus all your efforts on perfecting your AfC entry because it'll save everyone (including yourself) a lot of time and trouble. The reasoning behind this is that you can continuously work on your AfC and it won't be subjected to many different AfD threads and it won't be seen as spamming or overly self promotional. (Not saying you are, but you've got to be careful of this stuff.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  - Minor clarification, if you check the log you can see this article has been deleted four times. --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Four times? Yikes. My vote is now to "Delete and salt".Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Speedy delete and SALT - This is a strong case of "I didn't hear that!" John Lyman actions here are solely to promote himself and his journal, he is a run of the mill SPA and spammer and should be blocked as such. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT. This is one person repeatedly adding articles after having them deleted and apparently not doing any real improvements to the articles along the lines of what is necessary to prove notability. I also recommend potentially blocking the article creator since it's unlikely he'll stop adding them back in until he's been blocked. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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.