Talk:George Mason Law Review

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Untitled[edit]

The previous which was marked for speedy deletion has been totally deleted, and replaced with a substantive history of the George Mason Law Review, a chronology of the volumes and editors-in-chiefs, award winning writers, and other aspects.

Notability? Article Length?[edit]

Why exactly is this article significantly more lengthy than either the Harvard Law Review University of Pennsylvania Law Review or Yale Law Journal entries? 70.21.38.201 (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have edited and shortened the Page[edit]

In consideration of your comments, this page has been shortened and edited. Please remove the banner at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.233.95 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Influential Articles[edit]

Are there any particularly famous or influential articles that can be mentioned here? Idag (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. All of these articles have been cited >25 times according to Google Scholar, and the works that cite them have themselves been cited even more. Also, two of the authors are notable academics as they have their own Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staeiou (talk • contribs) 14:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest[edit]

Does anyone think that the COI still stands? Most of the self-glorifying content has been removed and this article did get a good amount of traffic from the AfD. Staeiou (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the policy, I think we should keep it around until something new and substantive gets added. A lot of content was removed, but the only thing that was added was your mention of the four influential articles. Thus, this article still largely reflects the views of its (presumptively) George Mason Law Review members. Idag (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]