Talk:Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal

Notability/accuracy concerns

Source cited gives no credence to the "fifth most-cited" claim at all, just a link to an academic research page wanting money. This is borderline spam, the "fifth most cited" claim is the only reason it hasn't been immediately speedy tagged. If this cannot be proved will AfD it. Seraphimblade 21:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the web link to a database that is not separately linkable. If you use the filter "intellectual property," this journal is fifth. This ranking database uses "impact factor" as its way to rank law journals. "Impact factor" is related to the number of citations the article has received by other articles. Not sure what you mean by "academic research page wanting money." It is simply a searchable database for ranking law journals, widely accepted by the law journal community.

Perhaps I'm doing this incorrectly? An attempt to use "intellectual property" for a filter shows the journal sixth, but that's just in alphabetical order. I don't find a way on that site to get citation ratings. It would be better to have a little better confirmation though-part of verifiability is that readers should be able to reasonably easily verify and read more about the information placed here. As to wanting money, seems just about every link you click on on that site wants to sell you a subscription to something. Seraphimblade 03:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually claiming that the article fails WP:V? Or that the verification could use some improvement? What is the point in threatening an AfD? If you find others' work less-than-perfect, fix it! - crz crztalk 16:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Generally, I consider it a bit underhanded to AfD something without some notice of the possibility, especially where there is some notability claim-that's not a "threat", it's simply a notification. If I -could- improve the work I would-and as I stated, I followed the author's instructions myself and did not get the results he claimed. I find very few other secondary sources mentioning this publication, and none mentioning the "fifth most-cited" bit. How am I supposed to "fix" something I can find nothing on to fix it with? Seraphimblade 07:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To add to previous, I apologize as I didn't answer part of your question. The main issue was with WP:RS, especially for the "fifth most-cited" claim, and also with WP:N. I don't believe I brought up WP:V, except perhaps indirectly by questioning whether the source does indeed support the claim. Per WP:RS,

"Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

As this is the journal's only claim to notability, it certainly is not common knowledge and therefore must be sourced, and the source is only a single listing in a search engine, I believe that the notability concern is a valid one. Seraphimblade 07:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, academic jounrals are simply notable if verifiable. If you start an AfD, my crystal ball tells me it'll fail. - crz crztalk 11:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it be an acceptable compromise to remove the "fifth most-cited" bit (at least until/unless it can be sourced) and perhaps mention some verifiable information instead (some specific topics it's covered perhaps? That would be verifiable to flesh out the article a bit, even using the journal itself as a primary source.) If that'd be alright with you I'll work on finding some abstracts from it. Seraphimblade 17:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's sourced. Check the box at the intersection of IF and 2005 and select "Intellectual Property" in the first pulldown menu and click submit. Fordham IPLJ is #5. - crz crztalk 18:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. I was trying to use "intellectual property" as filter text before, thanks. Seraphimblade 19:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)