Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh Middle East Report

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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Middle East Report[edit]

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

A hardly notable periodical made by George Richards and Camilla Hall, two students at the University of Edinburgh. Most edits are made by User:Gergis, who tried to improve notability by editing other articles (like this one). Meanwhile the 'journal' is no more than a weblog. No links to external sources, and I could not find a reference to the at the University of Edinburgh's website. Jeff5102 (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EMER was indeed founded by George Richards and Camilla Hall, while they were students -- but not sure that has any bearing on notability. As the article states, EMER was / is primarily a print journal -- so characterisation as "no more than a weblog" is wrong. EMER is not funded by the University of Edinburgh, so no reference on the University website irrelevant. Notability of EMER is also borne out by past contributors, which include university professors (Carole Hillenbrand [1]), journalists at the Financial Times (Camilla Hall [2]) and The Guardian (Fred McConnell [3]), broadcasters (George Richards [4]). gergis (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Jeff5102 (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not inherited from contributors; multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are not finding the reliable, 3rd party coverage of the journal itself that would be needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero holdings in libraries known to worldcat. Large holdings don't convey notability, but few or no holdings usually correlates well with lack of notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2014 (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.