User talk:Jurideek

Welcome!

Hello, Jurideek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jipitec

The article Jipitec has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty As I understand it, I have no means to oppose arguments to this, short of having access to expensive paywalled websites. Besides, as you have already removed most the articles and some of the third-party references I included, I guess it's not worth entering a edit war by replacing this information. Therefore, I do not wish to engage in a debate: if you deem notability to be an issue, then by all means proceed with deletion. But if you consider notability to be an issue for this journal, I can only suggest you check other law journals articles, and most of Open Access journals as well: I believe most of them would not satisfy your criterions. Jurideek (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there's a lot of other crap that needs cleanup and only so many hands to do it. As for the costly subscription services, most of them (probably even all) have freely available lists of what they index, so you don't necessarily needs access to see whether a journal is included in one of them (I have several links on my user page). I don't see any third party references that I removed, apart from a blog post (not a reliable source) that doesn't contribute to notability. Neither did I remove any articles, but I would have if there had been any, unless there would have been sources discussing the importance of those articles for the journal. I shortened the article and removed some trivial info, nothing that would have helped establishing notability for an academic journal. Please see WP:JWG for what is needed for a good article on an academic journal. --Randykitty (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty If I may, the IPKat may be a blog, but it's a very famous and celebrated one, held by several equally lauded academics and professionals, with at least two editors of Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice in its editorial team. In terms of content, it's almost a law review on a blog. I do not think that the blog rule applies to it. My remark was not "other crap exists": it was rather that the criterion seem very harsh for academic journals, which is a very confidential subject. Articles and publications are talked about, not the journals in themselves. There is no doubt that Open Access journals will in this regard be very disadvantaged compared to more classical modes of publishing. Jurideek (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NJournals exists to make it easier for journals to pass the bar for notability. OA journals don't really have a disadvantage and many of them are included in the most selective databases. Note that not everyone accepts NJournals (which is only an "essay") and those editors will insist on a journal meeting WP:GNG, which is, indeed, very hard for a decent journal to do (ironically, it is often the bad journals that pass this bar, because they cause scandal and are covered in reliable sources solely for that reason). --Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]