315:). I completely agree that COI editors shouldn't add content to articles about journals published by their employers, and I am also troubled by the lack of coverage of this journal in secondary sources, but it still looks like this passes
409:(who apparently is not with Sage anymore or has moved to other responsibilities, as he doesn't edit here any more) was a bit of an exception, but most people working for a publisher see that it is in their best interest to follow
176:
363:
to get sufficient coverage in independent sources to allow us to write an article compliant with fundamental policy, ie. one whihc can be verified as neutral by reference to reliable independent sources.
413:, so that articles won't get deleted as spam. I find their contributions generally useful, as it is less work to clean up an article if necessary than creating one from scratch... --
207:
Article on a minor journal, created by an employee of the publishers, with no reliable independent sources. The "references" are merely index descriptors. Not PubMed indexed,
311:, and it looks like this article does pass. If there are problems with with COI or references, these should be resolved by editing the article rather than deleting it (see
129:
170:
393:. One of the Sage articles that I did not get around to cleaning yet. Nevertheless, COI is not a reason for deletion and can easily be addressed (see our
136:
102:
97:
106:
405:. As for the COI, it is actually not that difficult to create a neutral article on an academic journal, even for a COI editor.
17:
89:
191:
158:
241:"he most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major citation indices"
441:
342:
324:
264:
40:
244:
152:
422:
377:
346:
328:
302:
268:
224:
148:
71:
437:
36:
253:
I'm leaning toward keeping this, but I'm willing to be persuaded if someone can show me why this fails
418:
338:
320:
260:
198:
402:
334:
316:
308:
254:
248:
235:
184:
93:
208:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
436:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
406:
164:
414:
59:
54:
410:
394:
372:
366:
312:
297:
291:
286:
219:
213:
85:
77:
282:
123:
278:
333:
Upon further consideration, I have concluded that this article passes
430:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
359:, because those guidelines only tell us what sort of article is
251:
as an example of a major citation index), EBSCO, and ProQuest.
355:
whether a subject "passes" a subject-specific notability
307:
But the relevant inquiry is whether the article passes
247:, including SCOPUS (which is specifically mentioned by
119:
115:
111:
183:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
444:). No further edits should be made to this page.
245:it is indexed by several major indexing services
197:
8:
337:; I have updated my vote accordingly. --
243:. According to the journal's website,
240:
7:
24:
397:). Indexed in Scopus, which is
319:'s notability requirements. --
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
395:journal article writing guide
351:No, the relevant question is
72:00:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
423:14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
378:00:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
347:19:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
329:01:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
303:23:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
269:19:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
234:I'm not sure if this fails
225:11:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
461:
433:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
239:, which explains that
55:(non-admin closure)
376:
301:
223:
57:
452:
435:
370:
295:
217:
209:no impact factor
202:
201:
187:
139:
127:
109:
69:
64:
53:
34:
460:
459:
455:
454:
453:
451:
450:
449:
448:
442:deletion review
431:
339:Notecardforfree
321:Notecardforfree
261:Notecardforfree
144:
135:
100:
84:
81:
65:
60:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
458:
456:
447:
446:
426:
425:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
349:
272:
271:
205:
204:
141:
80:
75:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
457:
445:
443:
439:
434:
428:
427:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
389:
388:
379:
374:
369:
368:
362:
358:
354:
350:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
331:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
305:
304:
299:
294:
293:
288:
284:
280:
276:
275:
274:
273:
270:
266:
262:
258:
256:
250:
246:
242:
238:
237:
232:
229:
228:
227:
226:
221:
216:
215:
210:
200:
196:
193:
190:
186:
182:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
150:
147:
146:Find sources:
142:
138:
134:
131:
125:
121:
117:
113:
108:
104:
99:
95:
91:
87:
86:Clinical Risk
83:
82:
79:
78:Clinical Risk
76:
74:
73:
70:
68:
63:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
432:
429:
403:WP:NJournals
398:
390:
365:
360:
356:
352:
335:WP:NJournals
317:WP:NJournals
309:WP:NJournals
290:
289:, though...
255:WP:NJournals
252:
249:WP:NJOURNALS
236:WP:NJOURNALS
233:
230:
212:
206:
194:
188:
180:
173:
167:
161:
155:
145:
132:
66:
61:
49:
47:
31:
28:
407:Luke.j.ruby
171:free images
415:Randykitty
401:and meets
438:talk page
399:selective
357:guideline
277:It fails
37:talk page
440:or in a
130:View log
39:or in a
177:WP refs
165:scholar
103:protect
98:history
411:WP:JWG
361:likely
313:WP:ATD
287:WP:COI
149:Google
107:delete
373:Help!
353:never
298:Help!
283:WP:RS
231:Keep.
220:Help!
192:JSTOR
153:books
137:Stats
124:views
116:watch
112:links
62:Davey
16:<
419:talk
391:Keep
343:talk
325:talk
279:WP:V
265:talk
185:FENS
159:news
120:logs
94:talk
90:edit
67:2010
50:keep
367:Guy
292:Guy
259:--
214:Guy
199:TWL
128:– (
52:.
421:)
345:)
327:)
285:,
281:,
267:)
211:.
179:)
122:|
118:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
58:––
417:(
375:)
371:(
341:(
323:(
300:)
296:(
263:(
257:.
222:)
218:(
203:)
195:·
189:·
181:·
174:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
151:(
143:(
140:)
133:·
126:)
88:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.