| Revision as of 20:31, 1 February 2013 editOne bot (talk | contribs)32,540 editsm Removing Category:Relisted AfD debates← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:53, 7 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | ||
| The result was '''delete'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | The result was '''delete'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| Non-notable new journal. Indexed in ], but not in ] (OA-or hybrid OA- journals get into PubMed through ], which is not very selective in its inclusion criteria). Not indexed in any selective database. No independent sources. Does not meet ] or ]. Hence: '''Delete'''. ] (]) 16:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC) | Non-notable new journal. Indexed in ], but not in ] (OA-or hybrid OA- journals get into PubMed through ], which is not very selective in its inclusion criteria). Not indexed in any selective database. No independent sources. Does not meet ] or ]. Hence: '''Delete'''. ] (]) 16:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| : '''Keep'''. ]'s objection to Pubmed as evidence for notability is that "it includes medical news sources of various degrees of quality, including such items in peer-reviewed journals it does cover". However, since JHD's content is peer-reviewed, this objection does not apply here. Therefore I propose keeping the article on the basis of (1) Coverage in pubmed and (2) fully peer-reviewed content. < |
: '''Keep'''. ]'s objection to Pubmed as evidence for notability is that "it includes medical news sources of various degrees of quality, including such items in peer-reviewed journals it does cover". However, since JHD's content is peer-reviewed, this objection does not apply here. Therefore I propose keeping the article on the basis of (1) Coverage in pubmed and (2) fully peer-reviewed content. <span style="color:#cb7b40;">'''Dubbin'''</span><sup>''] | ] | ]''</sup> 16:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| : Edit - As further evidence of the journal's notability, I submit these two citations of JHD as a reputable source from and . < |
: Edit - As further evidence of the journal's notability, I submit these two citations of JHD as a reputable source from and . <span style="color:#cb7b40;">'''Dubbin'''</span><sup>''] | ] | ]''</sup> 16:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Both of those links are press releases. They add nothing to the journal's notability or reputation. --] (]) 01:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | ::::Both of those links are press releases. They add nothing to the journal's notability or reputation. --] (]) 01:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::*'''Comment''' This interpretation is wrong. The remark indicates that PubMed is not enough to establish notability because PubMed (in contrast to ]) is not selective enough, because, for example, it includes non-peer-reviewed publications. Nowadays, PubMed also includes anything that goes into ], which is even less selective. If PubMed coverage and being peer-reviewed would be enough for notability, then most new OA (or, as in this case, hybrid OA) journals would be notable almost automatically within a few months of publishing their first articles. As for the sources mentioned above, both are the same press release, not something written by those sources and never accepted on WP to establish notability for any subject. --] (]) 16:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC) | ::*'''Comment''' This interpretation is wrong. The remark indicates that PubMed is not enough to establish notability because PubMed (in contrast to ]) is not selective enough, because, for example, it includes non-peer-reviewed publications. Nowadays, PubMed also includes anything that goes into ], which is even less selective. If PubMed coverage and being peer-reviewed would be enough for notability, then most new OA (or, as in this case, hybrid OA) journals would be notable almost automatically within a few months of publishing their first articles. As for the sources mentioned above, both are the same press release, not something written by those sources and never accepted on WP to establish notability for any subject. --] (]) 16:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ★☆ ]☆★ 01:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ★☆ ]☆★ 01:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ★☆ ]☆★ 01:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ★☆ ]☆★ 01:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Delete''' Sorry, not notable, or at least not yet. The promoters of this journal really need to slow down. An article was created, and deleted, in 2011, before it had even started publication. The journal is still less than a year old. After some time has passed it may develop enough notability for inclusion, but it's not there yet. --] (]) 01:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Sorry, not notable, or at least not yet. The promoters of this journal really need to slow down. An article was created, and deleted, in 2011, before it had even started publication. The journal is still less than a year old. After some time has passed it may develop enough notability for inclusion, but it's not there yet. --] (]) 01:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| <hr style="width:55%;" /> | <hr style="width:55%;" /> | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| <hr style="width:55%;" /> | <hr style="width:55%;" /> | ||
| *'''Delete''', MelanieN's reading of the sources offered by Dubbin seems correct to me, and I don't see a reasonable case, editorially, for merging into the article on the disease. I wouldn't lose any sleep if it were listed at ] with a '''redirect''', but I suspect that list is intended to be listed to notable journals, and this one doesn't seem to reach ] yet. --]] 16:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', MelanieN's reading of the sources offered by Dubbin seems correct to me, and I don't see a reasonable case, editorially, for merging into the article on the disease. I wouldn't lose any sleep if it were listed at ] with a '''redirect''', but I suspect that list is intended to be listed to notable journals, and this one doesn't seem to reach ] yet. --]] 16:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | ||
Latest revision as of 07:53, 7 February 2023
- 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. Sandstein 20:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Journal of Huntington's Disease
- Journal of Huntington's Disease (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. Indexed in PubMed, but not in MEDLINE (OA-or hybrid OA- journals get into PubMed through PubMed Central, which is not very selective in its inclusion criteria). Not indexed in any selective database. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:NJournals's objection to Pubmed as evidence for notability is that "it includes medical news sources of various degrees of quality, including such items in peer-reviewed journals it does cover". However, since JHD's content is peer-reviewed, this objection does not apply here. Therefore I propose keeping the article on the basis of (1) Coverage in pubmed and (2) fully peer-reviewed content. Dubbin 16:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Edit - As further evidence of the journal's notability, I submit these two citations of JHD as a reputable source from Reuters and Yahoo Finance. Dubbin 16:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Both of those links are press releases. They add nothing to the journal's notability or reputation. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This interpretation is wrong. The remark indicates that PubMed is not enough to establish notability because PubMed (in contrast to MEDLINE) is not selective enough, because, for example, it includes non-peer-reviewed publications. Nowadays, PubMed also includes anything that goes into PubMed Central, which is even less selective. If PubMed coverage and being peer-reviewed would be enough for notability, then most new OA (or, as in this case, hybrid OA) journals would be notable almost automatically within a few months of publishing their first articles. As for the sources mentioned above, both are the same press release, not something written by those sources and never accepted on WP to establish notability for any subject. --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry, not notable, or at least not yet. The promoters of this journal really need to slow down. An article was created, and deleted, in 2011, before it had even started publication. The journal is still less than a year old. After some time has passed it may develop enough notability for inclusion, but it's not there yet. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect to Huntington's disease. Neutrality 11:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that's feasible. Even though the journal is about the disease, that doesn't mean there's a sensible way of merging it into the article on the disease. --Randykitty (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, MelanieN's reading of the sources offered by Dubbin seems correct to me, and I don't see a reasonable case, editorially, for merging into the article on the disease. I wouldn't lose any sleep if it were listed at List of medical journals with a redirect, but I suspect that list is intended to be listed to notable journals, and this one doesn't seem to reach WP:GNG yet. --j⚛e decker 16:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- 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.