280:
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.
1382:. 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
582:(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
523:. 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.
1015:). 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.
811:, 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.' :) --
641:, 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
672:
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,
1133:. 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?--
1270:
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--:
498:. 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
1091:
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
Knowledge (XXG) is, I hope it will be just the beginning.
197:, for example: "According to the database of English-language law journals at Washington & Lee University, 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
1059:
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
Knowledge (XXG) , or by scholarship in general,--though in each case, a few have made it. In answer to a few objections:
1387:
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.
881:. 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.--
1306:
1409:
I am sorry you feel like this. I think that if you would have taken the effort to familiarize yourself with
Knowledge (XXG)'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
1386:
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
Knowledge (XXG) would be this, particularly as someone
1274:
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
1090:
5. As for the general value of
Knowledge (XXG)'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
611:
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
1086:
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.
1058:
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
206:
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
1099:
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
201:
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
1269:
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
577:
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
279:
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
923:
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
1451:
After cooling off a bit, I have decided to withdraw my last comment (I don't know if I can delete it myself). I remain convinced that Knowledge (XXG)'s notability policy for academic journals is fuzzy to say the least. This, inevitably, leaves room for an uneven application across comparable
671:
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
1075:
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
346:@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
662:
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 -
1122:"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:
1346:, who has shown to be very knowledgeable in the field. Deleting this entry might just turn away from Knowledge (XXG) another knowledgeable user; all for the enforcement of a criterion, that of notability, whose meaning is very subjective and fuzzy.--
1215:. 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:
162:
490:. 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
1298:. 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,
1100:
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.
761:
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
1164:
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?
1010:
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
1130:. 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
1071:
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
1234:(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
202:
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
433:
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
90:
85:
637:
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
94:
156:
483:. 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.
207:
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
77:
848:
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
1041:
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.--
117:
400:
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 Knowledge (XXG) standards. Please read
667:- 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
122:
1068:
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.
330:
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.
1083:
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.
785:. 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
1187:
for this journal. Really, all this detail doesn't exist as far as Knowledge (XXG) is concerned. All that is required to keep a topic is analysis in third-party sources.
721:
To be an academic journal written by student of one the leading institution in economic in Europe mean that the journal is notable, because satisfies point 1 and 3 of
81:
1452:
publications, however in good faith. I still remain convinced that the article was appropriate. However, this is no reason to take it personally. My apologies to
231:
775:
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
257:
193:
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
548:(which I wrote :-) and its talk page. Although the proposed guideline got flak from both deletionists and inclusionists, it was mainly criticized for being
1299:
491:
73:
65:
808:
722:
579:
545:
177:
144:
850:
693:
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.
1481:
1423:
1400:
1355:
1334:
1317:
1286:
1260:
1202:
1174:
1142:
1111:
1050:
1033:
998:
974:
933:
914:
890:
869:
820:
798:
752:
712:
685:
654:
629:
595:
561:
532:
512:
471:
444:
413:
370:
339:
300:
272:
246:
220:
59:
138:
1018:
612:
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
134:
1372:
389:
319:
366:
17:
1238:, as a sign of Italian "Cultural Renaissance" (the article title is, indeed, Rinascimento Italiano, which means Italian Renaissance)
385:
184:
842:. Journals featuring the writing of undergraduate or graduate students exist at many colleges and universities. For example, the
676:
would also call for deletion, as it has not succeeded in establishing itself as the one language spoken by everyone worldwide. --
315:
296:
1368:
1235:
1158:, publish case notes and comments, which are - indeed - written by students. As a matter of fact, the latest issue of the
570:
455:
430:
150:
1383:
574:
422:
1438:
459:
36:
789:. Point 3, as you indeed say, a journal that just starts cannot yet be "historic". Conclusion: notability = zilch. --
1303:
1437:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1080:
I admit to being considerably startled to our deficiencies here, and I'm glad it is called to our attention.
508:
440:
401:
381:
354:
284:
1477:
1396:
1313:
1256:
1170:
1138:
1029:
994:
929:
886:
816:
681:
650:
591:
362:
544:
I am indeed aware of the fact that rules for notability are a bit different than for other subjects, see
1330:
962:
409:
335:
377:
987:
569:
Again, you are applying your notability criterion in a disparate manner. I can see the policy behind
1325:. It may very well be a notable publication someday, but it isn't yet. DGG stated it all very well.
1220:(1) news about the journal on Diritto & Diritti, one of Italy's most renowned legal web portals
950:
1342:. I believe much of the criticism made against the notability of this journal has been rebutted by
1197:
1042:
909:
864:
642:
583:
499:
495:
307:
288:
170:
1162:
1020:
954:
1159:
1151:
1150:
One more thing. I'm sorry to disappoint, but all American student-edited journals, including the
1046:
844:
311:
292:
1022:
1473:
1468:
for the sarcasm, as well as for the "law-abiding fascists" and the "jokers". I am truly sorry.
1392:
1364:
1351:
1343:
1309:
1252:
1184:
1166:
1134:
1025:
990:
925:
882:
812:
677:
646:
587:
503:
435:
425:
should stay, with even less evidence of notability than I have put in my article. Apparently,
358:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
958:
1465:
1461:
1419:
1326:
1155:
794:
748:
708:
625:
557:
528:
487:
467:
421:
Also, I fail to see why the modified version of this article should be deleted, whereas the
405:
331:
268:
242:
216:
1221:
739:
does this satisfy any of those criteria??? As far as I can see, this does not even come
1308:. I did insert this reference somewhere, but some smartypants must have removed this.--
1208:
1189:
901:
856:
766:
726:
694:
55:
781:
194:
1282:
1239:
1107:
970:
899:
Oh ho, so then it is a regular journal, and the student involvement has no meaning.
1360:
1347:
1128:"Of course, submissions by practitioners and academics are also more than welcome"
111:
763:
1453:
1415:
1016:
1012:
790:
744:
704:
621:
553:
524:
480:
463:
426:
264:
238:
212:
1227:
429:
was fine with that one. My feeling is this review standard is not matching the
1295:
638:
673:
50:
1457:
1277:
1127:
1123:
1102:
966:
404:
for infformation on what consists of notability according to this site.
1131:
1231:
Under "Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers", I have also found
1226:(2) on the website of "Il Nuovo Diritto", another Italian law journal
552:. Even so, this article does not meet that guideline in any way... --
703:
And according to what different rules would this then be notable? --
961:, there's nothing left. Anything worth saving can be included in
851:
Undergraduate Research Journal of North Carolina State University
1431:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
616:
historic. Just being a bright new idea does not mean that it is
1410:
deleted, I assume that this debate has become moot and can be
1305:, which has been purchased by the Harvard Law Library as well
986:. Puffery? Read first, and then say something worth reading.
1087:
This would be better done by those not associated with it.
107:
103:
99:
169:
1078:
Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers
183:
1243:These sources have now been added to the article.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1441:). No further edits should be made to this page.
494:explicitly) is enough evidence, as mentioned by
1183:Here's what you are missing; there aren't any
723:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academic journals)
8:
1300:Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers
492:Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers
74:Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers
66:Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers
252:
232:list of Italy-related deletion discussions
226:
258:list of Law-related deletion discussions
256:: This debate has been included in the
230:: This debate has been included in the
1380:Nolite ponere margheritas ante porcos
807:What has to be historic, according to
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
204:Erasmus Law & Economics Review'
48:. Speedy deleted by another admin.
24:
809:WP:Notability (academic journals)
580:WP:Notability (academic journals)
546:WP:Notability (academic journals)
431:Knowledge (XXG):New pages patrol
735:Sorry to be dense, but exactly
578:Journal, and therefore meeting
1:
1236:European University Institute
957:. Plus, once you remove the
821:20:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
799:20:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
753:17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
725:and point 2 read the article.
713:14:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
686:00:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
655:00:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
630:20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
596:19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
562:18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
533:17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
513:17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
472:17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
445:17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
414:17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
371:16:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
340:15:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
301:15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
273:14:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
247:14:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
221:14:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
1384:Edinburgh Student Law Review
1126:. Not one that states this:
575:Edinburgh Student Law Review
423:Edinburgh Student Law Review
1482:15:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
1424:11:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
1401:11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
1356:09:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
1335:05:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
1318:01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
1287:01:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
1261:01:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
1203:00:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
1175:23:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
1143:23:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
1112:23:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
1051:18:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
1034:18:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
999:14:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
975:14:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
934:23:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
915:18:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
891:14:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
870:10:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
60:14:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
1497:
1302:has also published a book
1275:for not yet notable.
1434:Please do not modify it.
949:per reasoning above and
573:. But this is not about
32:Please do not modify it.
1207:Thanks for the pointer
1294:Bocconi has published
779:, just that it is not
743:to satisfying them. --
1373:few or no other edits
963:Bocconi School of Law
390:few or no other edits
320:few or no other edits
1375:outside this topic.
392:outside this topic.
322:outside this topic.
571:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
456:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1160:Harvard Law Review
1152:Harvard Law Review
845:Harvard Law Review
460:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
44:The result was
1376:
1185:secondary sources
965:without problem.
393:
374:
357:comment added by
323:
304:
287:comment added by
275:
261:
249:
235:
1488:
1436:
1358:
1272:not yet notable.
1213:
1201:
1194:
1156:Yale Law Journal
913:
906:
868:
861:
516:
448:
375:
373:
351:
305:
303:
281:
262:
236:
188:
187:
173:
125:
115:
97:
34:
1496:
1495:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1445:
1439:deletion review
1432:
1209:
1190:
1188:
902:
900:
857:
855:
506:
438:
352:
282:
130:
121:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1494:
1492:
1470:
1469:
1444:
1443:
1427:
1426:
1389:
1388:
1377:
1337:
1320:
1289:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1241:
1232:
1229:
1224:
1217:
1216:
1205:
1178:
1177:
1145:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1081:
1073:
1069:
1061:
1060:
1053:
1036:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
978:
977:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
918:
917:
894:
893:
873:
872:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
802:
801:
770:
769:
767:User:Lucifero4
756:
755:
730:
729:
727:User:Lucifero4
716:
715:
698:
697:
695:User:Lucifero4
688:
657:
632:
601:
600:
599:
598:
564:
536:
535:
511:comment added
477:
476:
475:
474:
443:comment added
419:
418:
417:
416:
395:
394:
343:
342:
277:
276:
250:
191:
190:
127:
123:AfD statistics
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1493:
1484:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1450:
1447:
1446:
1442:
1440:
1435:
1429:
1428:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1408:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1385:
1381:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1338:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1321:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1304:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1290:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1279:
1273:
1268:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1242:
1240:
1237:
1233:
1230:
1228:
1225:
1222:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1212:
1206:
1204:
1199:
1195:
1193:
1186:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1163:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1146:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1104:
1089:
1085:
1082:
1079:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1057:
1054:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1037:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1021:
1019:
1017:
1014:
1009:
1006:
1005:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
985:
982:
981:
980:
979:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
945:
944:
935:
931:
927:
922:
921:
920:
919:
916:
911:
907:
905:
898:
897:
896:
895:
892:
888:
884:
880:
877:
876:
875:
874:
871:
866:
862:
860:
853:
852:
847:
846:
841:
838:
837:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
805:
804:
803:
800:
796:
792:
788:
784:
783:
778:
774:
773:
772:
771:
768:
764:
760:
759:
758:
757:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
733:
732:
731:
728:
724:
720:
719:
718:
717:
714:
710:
706:
702:
701:
700:
699:
696:
692:
689:
687:
683:
679:
675:
670:
666:
661:
658:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
633:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
610:
606:
603:
602:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
576:
572:
568:
565:
563:
559:
555:
551:
550:too inclusive
547:
543:
540:
539:
538:
537:
534:
530:
526:
522:
519:
518:
517:
514:
510:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
484:
482:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
446:
442:
437:
432:
428:
424:
415:
411:
407:
403:
402:WP:NOTABILITY
399:
398:
397:
396:
391:
387:
383:
379:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
349:
345:
344:
341:
337:
333:
329:
326:
325:
324:
321:
317:
313:
309:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
274:
270:
266:
259:
255:
251:
248:
244:
240:
233:
229:
225:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
210:
205:
200:
196:
186:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
136:
133:
132:Find sources:
128:
124:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
46:speedy delete
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1474:Grasshopper6
1471:
1448:
1433:
1430:
1411:
1406:
1393:Grasshopper6
1390:
1379:
1344:Grasshopper6
1339:
1322:
1310:Grasshopper6
1291:
1276:
1271:
1266:
1253:Grasshopper6
1250:
1223:, as well as
1210:
1191:
1167:Grasshopper6
1147:
1135:Grasshopper6
1119:
1101:
1098:
1077:
1055:
1038:
1026:Grasshopper6
1007:
991:Grasshopper6
983:
946:
926:Grasshopper6
903:
883:Grasshopper6
878:
858:
849:
843:
839:
813:Grasshopper6
786:
780:
776:
740:
736:
690:
678:Grasshopper6
668:
664:
659:
647:Grasshopper6
634:
620:historic. --
617:
613:
608:
604:
588:Grasshopper6
566:
549:
541:
520:
504:Grasshopper6
485:
478:
436:Grasshopper6
420:
359:Grasshopper6
347:
327:
278:
253:
227:
208:
203:
198:
192:
180:
174:
166:
159:
153:
147:
141:
131:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1466:Niteshift36
1462:Angryapathy
1371:) has made
1327:Niteshift36
618:going to be
507:—Preceding
488:Angryapathy
439:—Preceding
406:Angryapathy
388:) has made
378:Grashopper6
353:—Preceding
332:Angryapathy
318:) has made
283:—Preceding
157:free images
1296:Ugo Mattei
951:WP:CRYSTAL
787:frequently
639:Homeopathy
1449:Apologies
1211:Abductive
1198:reasoning
1192:Abductive
1072:otherwise
955:WP:EFFECT
910:reasoning
904:Abductive
865:reasoning
859:Abductive
674:esperanto
458:, a.k.a.
434:deletion.
195:synthesis
1369:contribs
1154:and the
1043:Brutaska
924:votes.--
777:reliable
643:Brutaska
584:Brutaska
500:Brutaska
496:Brutaska
386:contribs
367:contribs
355:unsigned
316:contribs
308:Brutaska
297:contribs
289:Brutaska
285:unsigned
118:View log
1407:Comment
1361:BarryOb
1348:BarryOb
1292:Comment
1267:Comment
1148:Comment
1120:Comment
1008:Comment
984:Comment
959:WP:PUFF
879:Comment
782:notable
669:ex ante
665:ex post
660:Comment
635:Comment
614:becomes
605:Comment
567:Comment
542:Comment
509:undated
441:undated
209:deleted
163:WP refs
151:scholar
91:protect
86:history
1454:Crusio
1416:Crusio
1412:closed
1323:Delete
1056:Delete
1013:Drmies
947:Delete
840:Delete
791:Crusio
745:Crusio
705:Crusio
622:Crusio
554:Crusio
525:Drmies
481:Crusio
464:Crusio
427:Crusio
328:Delete
265:Crusio
239:Crusio
213:Crusio
135:Google
95:delete
1283:talk
1124:Estro
1108:talk
741:close
586:). --
178:JSTOR
139:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
1478:talk
1464:and
1420:talk
1414:. --
1397:talk
1365:talk
1352:talk
1340:Keep
1331:talk
1314:talk
1257:talk
1171:talk
1139:talk
1047:talk
1039:Keep
1030:talk
995:talk
971:talk
930:talk
887:talk
817:talk
795:talk
749:talk
709:talk
691:Keep
682:talk
651:talk
626:talk
592:talk
558:talk
529:talk
521:Keep
468:talk
462:. --
454:See
410:talk
382:talk
363:talk
348:keep
336:talk
312:talk
293:talk
269:talk
254:Note
243:talk
228:Note
217:talk
171:FENS
145:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
56:talk
51:Cirt
1458:DGG
1278:DGG
1103:DGG
967:THF
737:how
609:has
607:WP
350:.
263:--
237:--
199:two
185:TWL
120:•
116:– (
1480:)
1472:--
1460:,
1456:,
1422:)
1399:)
1391:--
1367:•
1359:—
1354:)
1333:)
1316:)
1285:)
1259:)
1251:--
1173:)
1165:--
1141:)
1110:)
1049:)
1032:)
1024:--
997:)
989:--
973:)
953:,
932:)
889:)
854:.
819:)
797:)
751:)
711:)
684:)
653:)
645:--
628:)
594:)
560:)
531:)
502:.
470:)
412:)
384:•
376:—
369:)
365:•
338:)
314:•
306:—
299:)
295:•
271:)
260:.
245:)
234:.
219:)
211:.
165:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
58:)
1476:(
1418:(
1395:(
1363:(
1350:(
1329:(
1312:(
1281:(
1255:(
1200:)
1196:(
1169:(
1137:(
1106:(
1045:(
1028:(
993:(
969:(
928:(
912:)
908:(
885:(
867:)
863:(
815:(
793:(
765:.
747:(
707:(
680:(
649:(
624:(
590:(
556:(
527:(
515:.
486:@
479:@
466:(
447:.
408:(
380:(
361:(
334:(
310:(
291:(
267:(
241:(
215:(
189:)
181:·
175:·
167:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
137:(
129:(
126:)
114:)
76:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.