Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal on European History of Law

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 07:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal on European History of Law[edit]

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

Article dePRODded without stated reason by anonymous IP: PROD reason was: "Non-notable journal established 2 years ago. Article creation premature. No independent sources, not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals". In the absence of any evidence of notability: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Perfectly meets WP:NJournals standards.
- Meets criterion #1 - journal is influential in its subject area - per the note on that, we can confirm this question as it is listed on a major indexing service here
- Appears to also be used by other reliable sources. However, per journals guidelines, only needs to meet one criterion for inclusion. Lord Roem (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Index Copernicus is absolutely not the kind of selective major database that WP:NJournals talks about. As our own article tells you, it's a database of "user-contributed information" and therefore inclusion in it is basically trivial. Note that many respectable well-established journals, perhaps even most, have never put in the effort to get included in IC. A journal database that does not include any of the Nature journals, only 8 (eight!) Elsevier journals, and seems to think that impact factors are published in Current Contents really cannot be taken seriously. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - perhaps it is too soon? Can anyone provide evidence that it's been cited since 2010? Bearian (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per astute analysis by Lord Roem (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my note after Lord Roem's comments? The index he refers to is absolutely not selective nor major, so this does not meet either NJournals or GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2012 (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) 00:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Index Copernicus (IC) is an online database of user-contributed information." Non-notable journal. SL93 (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete subject to later re-creation per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. This journal first published only two years ago, a blink in academic time. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2012 (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.