From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Even if we assume that WP:NJOURNALS, while being a non-binding essay, is currently our best-practice on the topic, the Keep views have still failed to establish how the article meets NJOURNALS (other than the sweeping Criterion 1.b, which failed to reach consensus), and have not adequately refuted the claims it fails even under these overly permissive criteria. Kudos to Ritchie333 for the final relist, which allowed participants another week to address the GNG and NJOURNALS concerns. This discussion is also echoed in a similar AfD - WP:Articles for deletion/European Journal for Philosophy of Religion. Owen× ☎ 00:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Jordan Medical Journal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Jordan Medical Journal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists, but I couldn't find the sources to show it is notable. I may be missing something though from not reading Arabic. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can get this resolved. Boleyn ( talk) 20:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:NJOURNALS is not a notability guideline, and does not address nominator's implicit WP:DEL-REASON#8 rationale. More discussion around established policies and guidelines would be helpful in determining notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 18:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Indexed in Scopus, meets NJournals. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • As for the relist comment: NJournals explains why I think this has in-depth coverage meeting GNG. (And yes, I know it's an essay). -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    How would a handful of autogenerated stats from one source meet GNG? JoelleJay ( talk) 03:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence that the subject meets GNG, which is the only relevant guideline. Inclusion in selective indices does not confer or predict SIGCOV in IRS.
JoelleJay ( talk) 01:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Certainly a real journal with a real board and real articles. But there are no reliable independent sources covering it in non-trivial detail. So it doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. It's possible there is a merge target but I can't see one where this wouldn't be WP:UNDUE weight. Hobit ( talk) 06:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Headbomb's reasoning above. Llajwa ( talk) 21:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    • My concern is that none of those things have anything to do with our inclusion policy. The topic doesn't meet the GNG and it doesn't meet any SNG. Hobit ( talk) 04:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I withdraw my vote - I misjudged. Llajwa ( talk) 15:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I'm trying to parse the keep arguments. Existing for a long time isn't a reason we keep anything. And I'm really unclear what part of the (essay) NJOURNALS folks think is met. @ Headbomb: @ Randykitty:. I don't see how C1, C2 or C3 are met. I'm assuming you both are using C1.b which has a note that that criteria lacks consensus? Is there anything else? Hobit ( talk) 18:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    See WP:BADGER. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    See WP:VAGUEWAVE. Hobit ( talk) 22:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "no consensus", but was challenged, so I am relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Additional discussion leading to the above relist is at User talk:Ritchie333#Two AfD closes. Hobit ( talk) 14:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • We still have zero evidence of GNG coverage. Autogenerated stats by the indexing services journals apply to join are clearly not IRS SIGCOV, not least because if they were, the same amount and type of data appearing in any reliable index would also count (not just for the "selective" ones), as would the WAY more extensive stats autogenerated for every paper author by Scopus. If calling someone's Scopus profile "SIGCOV" would be risible, the same is obviously true for the journal. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jordan_Medical_Journal&oldid=1207294593"