Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Law Asia

{{Delrevxfd|date=2023 August 29}}

: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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Creation of a redirect to an appropriate target is at editorial discretion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

=[[:Digital Law Asia]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Digital Law Asia}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Digital Law Asia}})

Not really sure how to class this, a blog? An academic journal (as suggested by the infobox)? In any case, this is not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  • The Digital Law Asia platform serves as an academic and journalistic open-access forum dedicated to fostering debate on current and relevant events and developments related to digital law. The open access nature promotes accessibility and inclusivity in the legal discourse. It appears that the platform is part of a growing movement of platforms that are both open access and designed to have faster turnaround times. This trend reflects the dynamic nature of digital law, where swift responses and analyses are often required. The Digital Law Asia platform fills a specialized niche in providing insights and analyses related to digital law in a region that is a major player in the digital world. This regional focus contributes to its uniqueness.

:The editorial team of and contributors to Digital Law Asia consist of scholars, further enhancing the platform's credibility. The scholars' participation adds an additional layer of noteworthiness to Digital Law Asia, demonstrating a commitment to academic excellence and reflecting a scholarly approach to the subject matter. This collaboration with academic professionals helps position the platform as a reliable source of information and analysis, potentially reinforcing the case for inclusion in Wikipedia.

:Its unique blend of features may make it challenging to place Digital Law Asia within a single existing category. Reviewers may find platforms like Verfassungsblog helpful as comparison to understand the type of platform that Digital Law Asia may be similar to.

:The characteristics mentioned above justify its inclusion in a reference work like Wikipedia, where information about innovative and significant platforms is preserved and shared with a broader audience. While inclusion would depend on Wikipedia's specific notability guidelines, the aforementioned attributes make a compelling case for considering Digital Law Asia as a valuable addition to Wikipedia. Hence: keep. Roclawfan (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment: I am not sure that merging/redirecting to the Law School is a good idea, given that this publication is not mention on its website (not even in [https://law.nycu.edu.tw/en/faculty-research-law-journals/ the page dedicated to Law Journals]... --Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

:The Digital Law Asia platform's editorial team[https://digital.law.nycu.edu.tw/editors/] and contributors[https://digital.law.nycu.edu.tw/contributors/] include scholars from various institutions, not limited to the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law. This diverse collaboration enhances the platform's credibility, inclusivity, and academic rigor. The fact that Digital Law Asia draws from a wide array of scholars and experts across different institutions emphasizes its independent standing as an academic and journalistic forum. It's not confined to the perspectives and expertise of a single institution, such as the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law. Indeed, merging the pages could overshadow the unique contributions of scholars from other institutions who contribute to Digital Law Asia. It may also inadvertently align the platform solely with the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law, ignoring the diverse intellectual input from other sources.

:The diversity of editors and contributors to Digital Law Asia ensures a multifaceted and balanced approach to digital law topics, and a merger with a specific university's page might create a perception of bias or restricted scope, potentially undermining the platform's reputation for academic integrity.

:In short, the distinctiveness of Digital Law Asia, particularly the diversity of its editors and contributors from various institutions, further supports the argument against merging its Wikipedia page with the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law page. Maintaining separate Wikipedia pages will preserve the identity, recognition, and integrity of Digital Law Asia while acknowledging the unique contributions of scholars from different institutions. It ensures that the platform's inclusive and multifaceted nature is accurately represented, reflecting its essence and impact in the field of digital law.

:While collaboration and association between the two entities exists, the distinct characteristics and purposes of each warrant individual representation on Wikipedia. Merging the pages could lead to confusion, dilute the unique contributions of each entity, and hinder the ability of readers to find specific information related to either Digital Law Asia or the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law. Therefore, it is recommended to maintain separate Wikipedia pages for both entities, ensuring clear and focused representation of their respective missions, contributions, and impacts. Roclawfan (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is No consensus now on what should become of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

::Well, my relisting decision has been challenged which is perfectly okay with me. I'm not perfect and I review a lot of AFDs on a daily basis. It's a good thing that we have plenty of other administrators here who are perfectly capable of reviewing this AFD discussion and closing it. I encourage another admin to assess this discussion and close it appropriately. Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:::{{u|Liz}}, I'm sorry, I didn't mean this as a critique of your relist (and most certainly not anything inappropriate), just noting a different opinion. While I think there's consensus that this doesn't warrant an article, there also is clearly no consensus on what to do with it (i.e., merge or delete). I have no problem at all with your relist anda see no problem with you closing/relisting this again. --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:::I agree with the user {{u|Liz}} that there is no consensus. I respectfully disagree with the user {{u|Randykitty}}'s assertion that "there's consensus that this doesn't warrant an article." This is not the case. There are cogent arguments in favor of keeping the article in this discussion. I respectfully renew the arguments made in this page in favor of keeping the Digital Law Asia article on Wikipedia and respectfully ask that the deletion notice be removed. Roclawfan (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment: Well; there does seem to be consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted at this point, the sole "keep" !vote (ny the article creator) not really being policy-based. --Randykitty (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: This editor respectfully disagrees with the assertion that "there does seem to be consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted." Readers should refer to the above comments, including one which argues to keep the entry, and further refer to the specific arguments below on why the Digital Law Asia entry meets both WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. To be clear, this editor argues to keep the Digital Law Asia entry.

:Reasons under WP:NJournals

:The criteria here states, "If a journal meets any of the following criteria, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, it qualifies for a stand-alone article." These criteria are:

::Criterion 1: {{anchor|C1}}The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.

::Criterion 2: {{anchor|C2}}The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.

::Criterion 3: {{anchor|C3}}The journal is historically important in its subject area.

:Under the general remarks, "Journals dedicated to legitimate scholarship will often meet at least one of C1, C2, or C3." The Digital Law Asia platform is dedicated to legitimate scholarship. Therefore, arguments will be made to demonstrate compliance under each C1, C2, and C3.

:Criterion 1

:Digital Law Asia can be considered influential in its subject area, focusing on digital law, especially within the Asian context. Involvement of scholars as editors and contributors ensures academic rigor and credibility, contributing to its influence and suggesting that it holds a significant position within the field. For example, the editors of Digital Law Asia come from three notable universities in Taiwan. Its contributors come from various scholarly backgrounds both in Taiwan and abroad. Although inclusion in selective citation indices and being assigned an impact factor is one way to fulfill C1, it is not conclusive. The fact that Digital Law Asia includes editors and contributors of various scholarly backgrounds indicates its influence and reliability.

:Criterion 2

:Although difficult to obtain specifically detailed citation information for Digital Law Asia, its concise format and the inclusion of multimedia content can make it a valuable resource for scholars, practitioners, and researchers. Measuring citations for journals and media in nontraditional formats (such as the Digital Law Asia platform) is a complex and challenging task. The lack of standardization, limited database coverage, difficulty in attribution, challenges with multimedia content, rapid evolution of digital media, and potential biases towards traditional journals contribute to this complexity. These challenges call for innovative approaches that can adapt to the unique characteristics of nontraditional formats. Recognizing and addressing these challenges is essential to ensure that nontraditional scholarly works are accurately assessed and valued within the broader Wikipedia community. It also emphasizes the need for a more inclusive understanding of scholarly impact that goes beyond traditional citation metrics, embracing the diverse ways in which knowledge is shared and engaged with in the modern academic landscape.

:Criterion 3

:Digital Law Asia contributes to the historical importance in its subject area by being part of a growing movement of open access platforms and by addressing the rapidly changing landscape of digital law. Its focus on shorter blog posts and multimedia content may reflect a shift in how legal discourse is conducted in the digital age. Additionally, its specific focus on Asia might make it an important contributor to the understanding and development of digital law within a region that plays a significant role in the global digital landscape. To be clear, note that the criterion states, "Journal age is not a consideration here." Finally, the criterion notes that "It should be noted that journals that pass C3 will almost always pass WP:GNG directly."

:In summary, Digital Law Asia meets the criteria under WP:NJournals for inclusion as a stand-alone article based on its influence in the field of digital law, its academic rigor, and importance within its subject area. Its innovative approach to content, scholarly editorial team, and regional focus contribute to its noteworthiness and it should be allowed to stay as a stand-alone article.

:Reasons under WP:GNG

:If reviewers do not agree that Digital Law Asia fulfills the criteria under WP:NJournals, it nonetheless fulfills the requirements under WP:GNG. To repeat, Digital Law Asia offers a unique approach to legal discourse by publishing shorter blog posts, podcasts, and videos on digital law, especially within the Asian context. The involvement of scholars as editors and contributors and alignment with open access platforms suggest editorial integrity and academic rigor. The platform's alignment with reliable academic practices allows for verifiable evaluation of its notability. In short, the platform's multifaceted approach and commitment to academic excellence make it suitable for a stand-alone article. Hence: keep

:As a final note, under Wikipedia:Deletion process, a deletion notice's "presence over several weeks can become disheartening for potential editors." Therefore, I respectfully ask that this article be kept and the deletion notice be removed so editors can feel free to edit the article and further explore Digital Law Asia as a legitimate Wikipedia article. Roclawfan (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

::You say it meets WP:GNG, but I don't see an argument for that anywhere...? -- asilvering (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in IRS, which is required for an article such as this to meet GNG. NJOURNALS is an essay and is irrelevant here. JoelleJay (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.