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 Keep. A clear consensus has been shown that the article's subject is notable and simply needs rewriting. The nominator has effectively withdrawn as well; therefore, I see no reason to keep the discussion open. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Mason Law Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete:Rewrite There's a complete lack of Notability. In addition, the George Mason University School of Law page already has a link to the University's law review as well as to the other legal journals that are at the school. Per the comments below, some of the scholarship from this law review appears to have been cited (I don't have Lexis and there are no google cites of this Law Review). The current article, as it is written, does not discuss anything notable and needs to be completely revamped. Idag (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the law reviews of American law schools are the major academic journals of US legal scholarship. this is perhaps confusing, or it is different from the pattern in any other profession. But in law, the honor students of the law schools edit the publications in which the serious academic work of the scholars in the field is presented. It's not similar to any other type of student publication & not judged the same way. Holdings in hundreds of academic libraries. Indexed in all the appropriate indexes. The article needs to be rewritten to show the more general professional interest, not the details of how the students are selected, but that's an editing problem. DGG (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I agree that this may potentially apply to Yale or Harvard law review, there's nothing indicating that this particular student publication is notable in any way. Idag (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This survived an AfD already didn't it? The journal seems notable enough. Not very notable, but still notable.Nick Connolly (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Doing a Google search for "George Mason Law Review" does not yield any results (at least within the first 5 pages) in which this law review was cited in any significant way in a major article or court opinion. Therefore, it does not meet the standards of WP:Notability Idag (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Doing a Google Scholar search for "George Mason Law Review" (in quotes) produces multiple citations. More than enough to establish notability of a journal. Note that "notable" doesn't mean "famous" or "important" in this case.Nick Connolly (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Please provide those citations. Keep in mind that per WP:Notability, those citations must be Independent of the Subject. Idag (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply sigh, Policy Watch: Developments in Antitrust Economics Jonathan B. Baker The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Winter, 1999), pp. 181-194 (article consists of 14 pages) cites said journal, as does Effects of Assumed Demand Form on Simulated Postmerger Equilibria Journal Review of Industrial Organization Publisher Springer Netherlands ISSN 0889-938X (Print) 1573-7160 (Online) Issue Volume 15, Number 3 / November, 1999 DOI 10.1023/A:1007730632277 as does Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-SettingC Shapiro - Innovation Policy and the Economy, 2001 - works.bepress.com, as does Empirical methods in antitrust litigation: review and critique JB Baker and DL Rubinfeld - American Law and Economics Review. There also hits for International Journal of the Economics of Business, The Journal of Federalism, Constitutional Political Economy, European Journal of Law and Economics, and the book The Property Tax, Land Use, and Land Use Regulation amongst others. Do I have to do a LexisNexis search now?
        • Off to LexisNexis I go... and return with MARY BRYAN HILL versus HOM/ADE FOODS, INC., ET AL.CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2332 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, SHREVEPORT DIVISION 136 F. Supp. 2d 605; 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20232 "Supreme Court decisions in this field have not been entirely clear. That has resulted in a split among (and sometimes within) the circuits. A recent law review article [**9] concluded that six circuits, including the HN7Fifth, follow the majority rule that considers only the value of the injunctive relief from the plaintiff's perspective or viewpoint. Five circuits were said to follow the flexible "either viewpoint" rule that the defendants advocate in their memorandum. 3 Some district courts choose a third rule and evaluate the claim from the perspective of the party who invokes federal jurisdiction. See Brittain Shaw McInnis, The $ 75,000.01 Question: What Is the Value of Injunctive Relief?, 6 George Mason Law Review 1013 (1998)."Nick Connolly (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hickman v. Hickman (In re Hickman), No. 53A01-0211-CV-446 , COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, 805 N.E.2d 808; 2004 Ind. App. LEXIS 486, March 26, 2004, Filed , Transfer denied by Guardianship of Hickman v. Hickman, 822 N.E.2d 979, 2004 Ind. LEXIS 966 (Ind., Oct. 28, 2004)Nick Connolly (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • 67 FR 23654, Notices, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) Antitrust Division, United States v. Microsoft Corporation; Public Comments, Part II, Friday, May 3, 2002 [Part 15 of 22], FEDERAL REGISTER Vol. 67, No. 86Nick Connolly (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Law Reviews are notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Which is why Law Reviews have their own article. This particular law review is not notable. Idag (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying to assume good faith here, but how many times do people need to say that law reviews are notable? Not the notion of a law review, but law reviews. The reason there isn't an article for every law review in the country has more to do with willing editors and writers, not notability. also, a quick check on google scholar will get you a citation weight for papers from GM law review. Protonk (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Give me a single independent reliable source that cites the George Mason Law Review. So far, all I have seen is vague assertions that its "notable". Alright, if its notable, where is it cited? Idag (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • okey-dokey straight from a simple Google search in the first ten hits the book "The Property Tax, Land Use, and Land Use Regulation By Dick Netzer, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy" cites the George Mason Law Review. In the next 20 (most hits are naturally to the journal or associated pages as is normal) we have another book "Mergers and Acquisitions: Understanding the Antitrust Issues" By American Bar Association Staff, Robert S. Schlossberg which again cites George Mason Law Review. Next 10 gives yet another book "Rediscovering the Law of Negligence" By Allan Beever. No offence intended, but did you actually look? Nick Connolly (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • eeeekkkk now I'm addicted to finding references to a topic I don't care about! The Westlaw Database list "The World Journals and Law Reviews Library contains more than 700 leading and respected international journals including Harvard Law Review..." on page 13 of this list of notable law journals is George Mason http://www.westlaw.com.au/WLIWorldJournalsandLawReviewsLibraryv1.pdf.
        • Lol, *throws up hands*. If we're going to keep the article, it needs to be rewritten. Seems like the only notable thing about this journal is that some of its articles have been cited. The current article focuses on the selection process for members and some internal awards, none of which mean anything to anyone outside the law school. I've made edits to fix some of that, but the article still needs a major overhaul. As an alternative, since this article will never be anything more than a stub, what about merging the relevant parts of this article into the main article for the law school? Idag (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what AfD is for. AfD is not cleanup. Please review deletion policy and before nominating an article for deletion. If something can be fixed by regular editing process (such as including sources provided here), it isn't a good candidate for deletion. If you're concerned about the work involved or don't wish to perform the inclusion yourself, WICU and ARS are good places to take things like this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly, patently notable. Protonk (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clear notability from multiple sources and no reason to delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Nominator may also want to look into Harvard Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Columbia Law Review and West Virginia Law Review. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject of article is notable, although article does not (yet) establish this fact in a verifiable manner. I did a Lexis Search for all publications that have "Geo. Mason L. Rev" in the text. Note that law reviews do not use full citations, but refer to law reviews in this abbreviated fashion - keep that in mind when searching. Excluding those published by this review, there are 1682 articles that cite an article from this law review. I think that is a significant number. I believe that a massive list of citations lets me know the review is in fact notable, but I can't seem to find anything that reliably does so without being original research. We can't exactly link to Lexis or Google Scholar, can we? However, I don't think that means it should be deleted - we should just be looking for something that is about the review as well as posting some of the more notable articles published in it. Staeiou (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I've added some notable articles, which have been cited >25 times in Google Scholar. Two of them are written by academics who have an article on Wikipedia. Staeiou (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Law Reviews are an important source of legal scholarship and George Mason is a major law school ranked 38th in the country. As such, they produce and publish articles that are important and regularly used by the legal community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahblah5555 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 22 April 2008 (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.