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. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Law Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable, and article is written in an OR manner.-- Pax 20:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Acknowledged by specialized indexes (all of which have their own Wiki articles) as a reliable journal in this field. That's a good 3 or 4 scholarly sources. Shii (tock) 17:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If you mean the indexes listed in the article, none of these is even remotely selective, so inclusion in these indexes does not contribute anything to notability. If you mean any indexes not listed in the article and, in fact, selective, please clarify. --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I do find them selective. I would be okay with having an article on each of the journals in this list: http://www.slavicreview.illinois.edu/info/related.html Shii (tock) 00:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a long standing consensus in the Academic Journals WikiProject that these services are not selective (nor seems the list that you link to be very selective: apparently it's enough to have a home page to be included). The onus is therefore on you to demonstrate that we are all wrong and that these services are selective. Just saying you think they are really is not sufficient. --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote redacted Shii (tock) 00:48, 18 January 2015 (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.