- 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. Speedy deleted by another admin. Cirt (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
New journal, main claim to notability is that it is the first Italian student-edited law journal. Article is replete with exaggerated statements, some of them synthesis, for example: "According to the database of English-language law journals at Washington & Lee University,[2] Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers is the first student-edited publication venue for scholarly articles in the field of law in Italy. The other Italian journal therein listed as student-edited is, in fact, peer-reviewed." The W&L database contains two student-edited journals, one of which the author of this article dismisses on the grounds that "it is peer-reviewed". Besides being OR and synthesis, this shows a misunderstanding of what "editing" means. In addition, this database ranks Bocconi at the very bottom (together with a whole bunch of other journals with score zero). Although the article appears to be well-sourced with 13 references, with 1 exception these are to the journal itself or are irrelevant (for instance, the reference to the Erasmus Law & Economics Review's section policies, to substantiate that it is peer-reviewed). The 1 exception is claimed to show "A recognition of the innovative potential inherent in this initiative has received explicit recognition in a 2009 article appeared on the German Law Journal." When one reads that article, however, it becomes clear that Bocconi is only mentioned in passing. In all, it appears that this article has been created prematurely and does not meet the required notability standards. Hence it should be deleted. Crusio (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the reviewer seems to have missed the point (or, more likely, the writer of the page must have failed to make the point clear): the journal's main claim to notability is not really that it is the first Italian student-edited law journal.
In order to see the point, however, it is necessary to know a little bit more about scholarly publishing in the field of law, which is markedly different from (some would say unrigorous in comparison to) all other technical and scientific fields. Student-edited (by which I mean journals where it is students that select what gets published and what doesn't: I can see this being misleading to a non-lawyer, but that's how student-reviewed journals are called, in contrast to peer-reviewed journals)law reviews are the norm in the most important academic scenario in the world, i.e. the US, with only a handful of journals being peer-reviewed. In Europe, instead, articles are edited and reviewed by academics in the vast majority of journals. Some German student-edited law reviews exist, but they all are venues for final publication of an article. BSLSEP, on the contrary, is a working paper series, and this makes it markedly different from all other existing journals. The 2009 article that is referenced actually speaks about a model of publication, which has in BSLSEP its first example in the legal field . As such, the journal is indeed notable, and worthy of scholarly attention.
As for the other journal mentioned in the W&L database, it is not student-edited: the editorial board consists entirely of academics and professionals. Therefore, it is incorrectly listed as student-edited in that database which - however - still is the one of the most comprehensive for law reviews. Therefore, for someone who understands legal publishing, the author of the entry merely seems to make readers aware of an incorrect listing, rather than showing "a misunderstanding of what 'editing' means."
Last, but not least, I think it is far fetched to try and judge a working paper series, where papers can - and often have been - republished elsewhere (and cited from the journals they were republished in) based on its impact factor. That, if anything, confirms that the previous reviewer has largely missed the point about the working paper series format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutaska (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC) — Brutaska (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete I'm not going to get involved in the semenatics in the discussions above; I am going to stick to WP policy and say that there is no evidence of notability for this subject. Angryapathy (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Angryapathy. That just isn't an argument. You cannot say that there is no evidence without getting "involved in the semantics". I have seen another user has changed the entry and I find the edits, although somewhat severe,reasonable. I think the article, as has now been modified, is keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grasshopper6 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC) — Grashopper6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The issue has nothing to do with the state of the article. The issue is that the topic of the article does not have notability according to Wikipedia standards. Please read WP:NOTABILITY for infformation on what consists of notability according to this site. Angryapathy (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I fail to see why the modified version of this article should be deleted, whereas the Edinburgh Student Law Review should stay, with even less evidence of notability than I have put in my article. Apparently, Crusio was fine with that one. My feeling is this review standard is not matching the Wikipedia:New pages patrol criteria. Namely, the reviewers seem to be biased against this publication, in a manner that exceeds what has been expected of other similar entries. In light of this, I call even more strongly against deletion.Grasshopper6 —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
@Crusio. I see. This, however, does not hide that that "othercrap" was actually reviewed by you (see history), which shows that you're either biased against Bocconi, or have a particularly short memory.
@Angryapathy. I have read the notability page, and I believe that the fact that this journal is the first implementation of a model of publication which has been discussed in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (and which, by the way, also mentioned Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers explicitly) is enough evidence, as mentioned by Brutaska.
How you claim that there is no evidence without wishing to get into the technicalities, however, is beyond me. It's like saying microbiology is useless because I do not wish to read any papers in the subject.
And I still remain convinced that this review is not being conducted impartially. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I have received ZERO feedback on how to improve the article, and there is yet no rebuttal of the arguments put forth by Brutaska. Grasshopper6 —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. AfD is not for cleanup, though it helps. I think this journal is notable enough. Grasshopper, check your conspiracy theories at the door. Crusio, the rules for academic journals are a bit different from other subjects, as I'm sure you know. It seems to me the outfit is not commercial, it's run under the auspices of a university, it looks decent enough for me to stay. If that sounds like a very rough kind of judgment, so be it: the bottomline is that journals' notability cannot be measured in the same way, and the likelihood of articles about possibly sketchy journals on WP outnumbering equally sketchy TV show contestants is so small that I got no problem giving the benefit of the doubt as a default. That does not mean, of course, that inflated claims such as Crusio correctly identified should stay in the article. More cutting, I believe, can be done. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am indeed aware of the fact that rules for notability are a bit different than for other subjects, see WP:Notability (academic journals) (which I wrote :-) and its talk page. Although the proposed guideline got flak from both deletionists and inclusionists, it was mainly criticized for being too inclusive. Even so, this article does not meet that guideline in any way... --Crusio (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, you are applying your notability criterion in a disparate manner. I can see the policy behind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But this is not about Edinburgh Student Law Review per se, but rather about the fact that the "first Scottish student-edited journal" was fine by you, who were the reviewer of said entry just two weeks ago. Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers, despite even having been mentioned in a third-party source, i.e. the article on the German Law Journal, and therefore meeting WP:Notability (academic journals) (see historic purpose), is still not fine. While I see no conspiracy in this, as I am sure you have better things to do than conspire against this journal, I do believe you are trying too hard to make this publication fit into the categories you may have known from your work as a scientific editor, which - may I submit - might make you a little reluctant to actually see the importance of what is indeed a new formula for legal publishing, and one that has already received independent recognition. The very criteria you have written down in the notability page are not universally applicable. For example: how can you say that Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers has a low impact factor, without considering that - as a working paper series - it is physiological that it have none, because articles published there get regularly republished elsewhere, and cited from those sources (see comment by Brutaska). --Grasshopper6 (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP has no reviewers. If you feel that the Edinburgh journal does not meet the notability guidelines, you are free to propose it for deletion or take it to AfD. I'll probably vote delete, but that is not the question here at all. And what you are saying sounds like the BSLSEP is only a try-out for articles until they get published for real. As for the "historic purpose", the BLSEP just started and we'll have to wait and see whether it actually becomes historic. Just being a bright new idea does not mean that it is going to be historic. --Crusio (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is a working paper series, that's what it does. I am starting to doubt that your reservations pertain more to the nature of the project than to its actual notability (it's like saying: let's remove Homeopathy, as it's all bogus and it does not work). For your information, the referenced scholarly article indeed presents the model adopted by the publication. It is not a general recollection of law reviews in Europe, if you go beyond the title and abstract, but it focuses specifically on the working paper series model which the Bocconi publication adopts. Therefore, the lack of notability which you take for granted is all to be established, and I am skeptical of your reasons, which have - to a large extent - been rebutted by Brutaska --Grasshopper6 (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your interpretation of historic is also debatable. History and purpose are two complex concepts, that lend themselves to a multitude of different interpretations. In your previous comment, it seems that you judge purpose from an established record of fulfilling what is judged - ex post - to be something's purpose. In Hegel's words, "all that is real is rational" ;P In this respect, you forego another - equally plausible - interpretation, whereby purpose is an ex ante wish for change and - as such - clashes with the need to establish some evidentiary basis, precisely because it seeks to change a status quo that does not reflect it. In this perspective, what matters is that the purpose which is advocated be grounded in a thorough analysis of the extant circumstances, so as to be deemed to provide an answer to a historic contingency. In this perspective, "making horses fly" is not a historic purpose. The first example of working paper series, however, is indeed the important implementation of a historic purpose (bringing change in the field of student-run publications), supported by the analysis of existing circumstances in the field of student-run publications that has been performed in the referenced article. By your reasoning, for example, esperanto would also call for deletion, as it has not succeeded in establishing itself as the one language spoken by everyone worldwide. --Grasshopper6 (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't know if the journal is the first of his category in Italy but we have to remember that academic journal have different rules then the others.User:Lucifero4
- And according to what different rules would this then be notable? --Crusio (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Sorry to be dense, but exactly how does this satisfy any of those criteria??? As far as I can see, this does not even come close to satisfying them. --Crusio (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the journal is written by one of the leading istitution is sure that is reliable and influential, the journal hasn't a significant history ( it is only 1 year old ) but is not written only for this moment, for point 2 read here [1].User:Lucifero4
- Point 1, "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area": no evidence of this anywhere. Nobody claims the journal is not reliable, just that it is not notable. Point 2, "The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources": your link shows articles published by this journal, not that this journal has been cited by others frequently. Point 3, as you indeed say, a journal that just starts cannot yet be "historic". Conclusion: notability = zilch. --Crusio (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What has to be historic, according to WP:Notability (academic journals), is not the journal, but its purpose, as I have tried explaining in my last post two days ago. This, in turn, is established by the referenced scholarly article. It seems to me that your standard of interpretation of the notability criteria follows Humpty Dumpty's: `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.' :) --Grasshopper6 (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Journals featuring the writing of undergraduate or graduate students exist at many colleges and universities. For example, the Harvard Law Review is written by law students at Harvard, and is notable raised to the notable power. But this new journal is not notable in the least. It does not have any more claim of notability than the Undergraduate Research Journal of North Carolina State University. Abductive (reasoning) 10:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This grossly misunderstands the nature of the publication, which does not feature "the writing of undergraduate students". It is merely edited by students, but it has published notable and established scholars. Also, the journal is notable for its peculiar format, which has formed the object of a scholarly article. Hence, I disagree.--Grasshopper6 (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh ho, so then it is a regular journal, and the student involvement has no meaning. Abductive (reasoning) 18:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just saying that the journal is not a kind of showcase for student works, which is what you wrongly mentioned. It is edited by students, but featuring student articles is another thing than editing done by students. Not knowing the difference should suggest avoiding to cast random deletion votes.--Grasshopper6 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Puffery? Read first, and then say something worth reading. [2]--Grasshopper6 (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's be realistic. What we are talking about deleting is an article on a scholarly journal, published by a respected institution, which has even received scholarly attention because of its format (I subscribe to the post by Drmies). This journal is not a pornstar, nor a little-known actress or a Pokemon character. While some of you seem to hold the bar of notability in your hands and claim that this article's is at issue - with little to no knowledge of the area of European student-edited publications not being an obstacle to whatever little substianted claims of lack of notability - I think that you are doing a disservice to this encyclopedia (if I understand your way of thinking, I am by now expecting some pedantic WP: link to tell me I can't use this argument, because one of you has decided that it shouldn't be so and has written a self-referential page on it). Your stance towards a topic which none of you holds a commanding expertise in should make you think. If not, I have taken the pain to provide you with some links.[3] [4] [5][6] --Grasshopper6 (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep My opinion (second entry in this debate) hadn't been counted in the AfD statistics yet. It seems that my arguments weren't given serious consideration either. This journal is fine.--Brutaska (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This journal is not comparable to the student -edited US law journals, which publish actual articles, not working papers, and publish articles by accomplished legal scholars, not students. (as is well known, that the peer-review is performed by the students rather than actual academic peers of the authors is different from all other forms of scholarship. This is a journal that publishes student papers. Journals that publish student papers in any field, have a rather difficult patt to be considered notable, either by the standards here t Wikipedia , or by scholarship in general,--though in each case, a few have made it. In answer to a few objections:
- 1. The "scholarly attention" it has received is just the note that something new is being tried, not that it is successful. If it is successful, then it might become notable.
- 2. It is not a scholarly journal. It is a journal for the publication of student papers. (there are presently a few papers by established scholars). Student papers are not normally scholarly work, unless proven otherwise
- 3. As for the general value of working paper series, we should devote some effort to cover the established ones in the fields they are most important. Each individual one would have to show notability in its own right, not just existence. We might start with the famous ones, such as Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers I admit to being considerably startled to our deficiencies here, and I'm glad it is called to our attention.
- 4. As for European student publication, we are not all that ignorant either. Again, each individual one would have to show notability in its own right, not just existence.
- 5. I've read carefully the article in German Law Journal. It makes an excellent case for the possible notability of such titles. It does not however, make any case at all for the notability of this particular one. We should seriously consider writing articles about the ones it considers important. This would be better done by those not associated with it.
- 5. As for the general value of Wikipedia's notability standard, I am not particularly known here as a deletionist & neither is Crusio. But one difference between an encyclopedia and a catalog is that the encyclopedia is selective, and non-promotional. One reason for selectivity is that it is the only way to keep out promotionalism. The level of selectivity can be and certainly is argued, but the basic idea is well established, and there is an almost complete consensus that we should continue along the current path. I hope there will be a diversity of free works like ours with different goals & limits--no matter how great Wikipedia is, I hope it will be just the beginning.
In summary, from this journal's own home page: "the hope is that this small contribution might promote a culture of scholarly openness which is a necessary prerequisite for the advancement of knowledge and the improvement of society at large." Along with others involved in free publishing--which inherently includes all Wikipedians-- I wish their hope may be realized. When it is realized, the journal will become notable. But this is not the place for publicity for even the hopes we are most sympathetic to here, until then. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "It is a journal for the publication of student papers. (there are presently a few papers by established scholars)" Why do I smell contradiction here? Either this journal publishes student articles only, or it doesn't. This is a journal of student scholarship: Estro. Not one that states this: "Of course, submissions by practitioners and academics are also more than welcome". Additionally, many - among the student articles that did appear - were successfully republished elsewhere, thereby proving their scholarly value. Also, all published articles are issued under close Faculty supervision[7]. Therefore, claiming the non scholarly nature of working papers published here is a little far fetched. Also, by judging the journal by comparison to US law reviews, you are using the wrong standard: the US and European "markets" for legal scholarly publishing are - literally - an Ocean apart. Finally, re German Law Journal article, how is mentioning this publication as the first example of student-edited legal working paper series not making a case for its notability?--Grasshopper6 (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One more thing. I'm sorry to disappoint, but all American student-edited journals, including the Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal, publish case notes and comments, which are - indeed - written by students. As a matter of fact, the latest issue of the Harvard Law Review [8] contains more student-edited pieces than it contains articles by academics. Another (missing) brick in your wall, I'm afraid. And BTW. This is also mentioned in the German Law Journal piece. Are you sure you have really read it? --Grasshopper6 (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's what you are missing; there aren't any secondary sources for this journal. Really, all this detail doesn't exist as far as Wikipedia is concerned. All that is required to keep a topic is analysis in third-party sources. Abductive (reasoning) 00:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the pointer Abductive. I have followed your advice. As mentioned in the article, the publication's former name was "Italian Legal Scholarship Unbound Working Paper Series" or "ILSU Working Paper Series". Running that search on Google, I was able to find the following:
- (1) news about the journal on Diritto & Diritti, one of Italy's most renowned legal web portals [9], as well as
- (2) on the website of "Il Nuovo Diritto", another Italian law journal [10]
- Under "Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers", I have also found
- (3) mention of the journal in an article on an online magazine of Libertà Eguale, an Italian liberal think tank, where it was mentioned alongside other promising Italian cultural initiatives, such as the European University Institute, as a sign of Italian "Cultural Renaissance" (the article title is, indeed, Rinascimento Italiano, which means Italian Renaissance)[11]
- These sources have now been added to the article.
--Grasshopper6 (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is often a negative sign when someone compares their new enterprise to one of the world's finest. In this journal, almost all the articles are by students of their school, a few are by others. They say they hope to get papers from others. Whether they will succeed in getting them, is another matter. In Harvard Law Review, every principal article I have seen in the last few issues has been by a distinguished scholar--generally in the literal sense, e.g. " William L. Matheson & Robert M. Morgenthau Distinguished Professor, University of Virginia School of Law." there are additionally other material, such as case notes, by the student staff of the journal-- the difference is night and day. I say the same thing I say to other new publications--: not yet notable. I;ve read the notices linked to above: they re announcements of a new publication that they frankly call "experimental"--until the experiment succeeds, again, not yet notable. Similarly the article's supporter just above uses the word "promising" . As I see it, "promising"i s a fairly good synonym for not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bocconi has published Ugo Mattei. Call that a new kid on the block! I wasn't really comparing anything. I was just showing you that your assumption that student-edited law journals publish no student articles was blatantly wrong. Actually, it still is. Also, FYI, Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers has also published a book [12], which has been purchased by the Harvard Law Library as well [13]. I did insert this reference somewhere, but some smartypants must have removed this.--Grasshopper6 (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It may very well be a notable publication someday, but it isn't yet. DGG stated it all very well. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe much of the criticism made against the notability of this journal has been rebutted by Grasshopper6, who has shown to be very knowledgeable in the field. Deleting this entry might just turn away from Wikipedia another knowledgeable user; all for the enforcement of a criterion, that of notability, whose meaning is very subjective and fuzzy.--BarryOb (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC) — BarryOb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Nolite ponere margheritas ante porcos . Well, it looks like my article is going to be shut down by the will of an expert in "mouse behavioral neurogenetics ", a microbiologist, a librarian who has demonstrated not to have such a firm grasp of student-edited law reviews and someone who thinks FOX news is impartial. I have spent valuable time researching and improving this article, as well as trying to make you think about your weakly-held ideas about the alleged lack of notability of this publication. Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited papers is notable, and I am personally and intellectually offended by the lack of real debate in this AfD, since none of my numerous observations has received a convincing reply, and all of them have been discarded as though they were coming from the last idiot in the speaker’s corner. You may think you are doing a service to this encyclopaedia, "shutting down" the work of someone who has considerable expertise in this field, i.e. European student-edited journals. I beg to differ, and I rather think you are behaving - albeit in the utmost good faith - like a storm of law-abiding fascists (NB: I'm not saying you are fascists, I am just saying you are unknowingly behaving like them), who are so good at finding cool names for their questionable practices. You are CENSORING my article, an article which has cost me work and a considerable amount of effort (and, Crusio, once you have accepted the Edinburgh Student Law Review without any criticism, you are, really, censoring my article out of whim; there is no excuse for your arbitrary, authoritarian and ultimately pathetic behavior). Once you call it notability review, however, it is all PC and cool. I never thought Wikipedia would be this, particularly as someone who strongly believes in open content. For this reason, I shall withdraw my article myself: persuading a bunch of jokers (with reference to the field the article deals with) of their ignorance is no longer worth my time and effort, nor is this website, if its philosophy is to shut down newbies after thorny, discretional and self-referential policies.
--Grasshopper6 (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am sorry you feel like this. I think that if you would have taken the effort to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, that your experience might have been different. Given that you as article creator have decided to blank the page, which has subsequently been speedily deleted, I assume that this debate has become moot and can be closed. --Crusio (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2010 (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.