822:. What you need is a reliable source that says "the journal SNI has significantly influenced the field of foo", or hundreds if not thousands of citations showing that many authors have been reading a lot of the articles published in this journal. At this point, there is absolutely zero indications of notability. I think this point has been made sufficiently, so I will not comment again here unless someone manages to come up with clear evidence of notability, in which (unlikely) case I'll withdraw my nomination. --
328:. Criteria clearly state "If a journal meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through independent reliable sources (NO NUMBER OF REFERENCES MENTIONED), it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article" AND ALSO "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area". The fact that only four notable-journal references were added doesn't mean these are the only ones existing, but it does mean that the rules are being met.
367:, so this one doesn't come even near the lowest ranked journals. So even if there would be 100 citations to this journal instead of 4, that would still be dismal. NJournals does not mention any numbers, because citation rates depend on the field so no fixed number can be given. In humanities, articles/journals/researchers get cited much less than in high-citation fields like surgery and neurology. A humanities researcher might be found notable with an
353:
journal gets cited even once. None of the "notable journal references" that you added claim or confirm that this journal is considered to be notable. If a single one of my articles gets only 4 citations, I'm rather disappointed. But here we're not talking about a single researcher or a single article, but a whole journal and you would expect that to generate citation rates that are significantly higher. The three journals that according to the
716:. In fact, a quote like that in a reliable source would probably go a long way toward substantiating notability. And that's kind of the point - you still haven't addressed the wider issue of notability, in my view, which is far more important than the inclusion of a promotional line or two. Their inclusion (or not) will be resolved by the deletion of the article if you can't substantiate notability so that is very much a secondary concern.
776:). I am afraid one has to read the referred articles and understand the subjects and the the contexts to assess the significance of the citation. I will develop further tha cases for these 2 references ( 8 and 9 ) in separate comments. By the way the discussion seems to be developing beautifully to favor notability (and it hasn't finished!).
204:
and almost any new OA journal will get indexed (rather like DOAJ). The second reference is to
Reuters, with the byline "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." The third one is a press release from a university about one of their faculty, mentioning this journal in-passing.
672:-Main and corresponding author (Cho YD) bears no validable relationship to the journal unded discussion (SNI). Conversely Cho YD (of Seoul, Korea) appears as MAIN AUTHOR of at least 20-30 papers in notable academic journals ON SUBJECT-AREA claimed to have been influenced by the SNI-refered article.
352:
Whatever you may think, the analogy is correct. We are not talking here about in-depth discussion of this journal in the references that you provided, but simple "citations" to single articles published in the journal. If you check GScholar, you will see that hardly any article published in this
860:
Please be sensible. If you place the following internet search: "the journal
Science has significantly influenced the field of" or "the journal Nature has significantly influenced the field of" YOU GET ZERO (00) results. According to your criterion neither of these two top academic journals
659:-Reference to SNI paper cited refers to "anatomic variations in parent arteries...displayed by the aneurysms" citing a technical assessment of the level of difficulty of a surgical procedure alternatives, which is critical information to the research performed and reported in such reference 4
561:. The coverage included thus far (like press releases) is not sufficient in my view. I don't personally think a citation count (for a publication that generates them) is really relevant anyway. Produce significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and we'll talk. Until then, claims like,
903:
For exmaple, if in a verifiable source
President Obama quoted a phrase by Whitman or Thoreau (shall we say) one does not need an explicit statement by Obama saying that his own thought has been influenced by either one of those two writers. The influence is IMPLICITLY evident..!!!
302:
Not sure whether you meant "inserted" or "asserted". If the former, see my comment above. If the latter, assertion of notability is ground for rejecting speedy deletion, but does not mean anything in an AFD unless it can be supported by reliable sources.
371:
of 10 and a couple of hundred citations, a neurologist or surgeon would need an h around 20 and over thousand citations at least. Single-digit citation rates? Whatever the field, discussing that further is a waste of time and breath.
393:
SNI articles have been referred by notable journals would probably require a bot to examine every article case. Howeve this is not required by the rules, they only demand proof that the journal articles have influenced the subject
165:
794:- Let's make clear that the notable-journal references included ( 8 and beyond) are by no means the only existing proof of SNI articles influencing subject areas. They are just examples, which suffice the purpose.!!
818:. If you have any idea how scientific publishing works, you'll know that a single citation doesn't mean zilch. In addition, as pointed out above by others, drawing such a conclusion from this citation constitutes
959:
17:34, 18 February 2014 (+3,113) weakened considerably the case for the survival of the article strictly for reasons of wide UNVERIFIABILITY and lack of appropriate sourcing of the contents added at that
257:
In order for one single researcher to be notable, hundreds of citations are needed. Just four (4) citations to a complete journal are basically, if that is possible at all, proof of lacking notability.
781:- The fact that we are bringing research contents to discuss the justification of notable citations of SNI articles does not infringe Knowledge policy not to serve as a means of publishing
159:
861:(Science/Nature) have ever influenced any subjet area whatsoever, and that would be an absurd conclusion. Nobody (except yourself) has ever stated anywhere anything of that type.
118:
91:
86:
95:
741:-Nobody is saying that the first journal influenced the second..! What it influenced was the development of the SUBJECT area, as explicitly requires the criteria written in
994:
78:
1014:
549:- for all of the commentary and claims there still seems to be a lack of basic understanding as to how Knowledge works, including the citation of user essays like
1034:
125:
553:
as if it were a policy or guideline. The reality is that the only "official" standard that should be applied here is the same one as for every other subject -
810:
Please be serious. Cho et al. cite one article from this journal once in their introduction. That is by no means proof that this article influenced
742:
550:
325:
196:
Non-notable journal. There are currently three references in the article. The first one is to an editorial published in the journal and archived in
180:
147:
239:
I hope the new four notable-journal references just added provide sufficient support to the notability of the journal and revert WP:AfD
1046:
1026:
1006:
986:
948:
913:
885:
831:
803:
729:
685:
582:
540:
519:
490:
470:
434:
406:
381:
340:
312:
290:
267:
248:
230:
60:
141:
17:
466:
137:
82:
187:
74:
66:
1064:
40:
700:
Sorry, but citation of a paper in one journal by a paper in another (no matter how credible the authors) is not
355:
209:
database and there are no independent third party references other than one in-passing mention. Does not meet
153:
422:
1060:
722:
575:
36:
956:
827:
486:
454:
430:
377:
308:
263:
226:
939:
281:
210:
201:
173:
982:
946:
909:
881:
799:
681:
536:
515:
462:
402:
336:
288:
244:
449:
results give an average of about 10 citations per SNI article, quite a few of them showing : -->
1042:
1022:
1002:
770:
763:
753:
746:
603:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1059:
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
932:
786:
717:
570:
936:
823:
819:
482:
426:
373:
304:
259:
222:
752:
as a basis for the planning of his research, this is definitive proof that by publishing
704:
that the first journal "influenced" the second. As it stands, a claim like that is pure
759:
SNI influenced the development of the subjet-area (not another journal for gush-sake!).
446:
418:
197:
978:
905:
877:
795:
677:
646:-study was supported by grant A111101 of Korea Ministry for Health, Republic of Korea
554:
532:
511:
458:
398:
360:
332:
240:
214:
745:. If in the introduction of the citing research article Dr Cho YD cited SNI article
280:
nobtablity was inserterted however the article still needs some major improvements
1038:
1018:
998:
782:
709:
705:
558:
481:
Sorry, but I don't see that at all. Just click the link at the top of the page. --
112:
964:
For that specific reason (not for lack of notability of the journal) I join the
701:
566:
53:
773:
766:
756:
749:
606:
368:
762:-Similar arguments can be ellaborated for the cases of references 8 (
620:-Reference comes from a technically "notable" journal indexed in SCI
499:
Google
Scholar search link including citations (....//is.gd/wzZgpP)
1053:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
363:(out of 199 journals) got 133, 44, and 162 citations over 2012
899:
Quoting other people's work imply recognition of its influence
633:-Authors adscribed to Seoul National University Hospital,Korea
557:. That means we require significant coverage in multiple
108:
104:
100:
172:
528:like which? Why not be specific about it, thanks !
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1067:). No further edits should be made to this page.
995:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
785:, let's not confuse words and concepts my dear
565:, should be removed until they can be properly
592:Claims verification, in-depth analysis, PART 1
1015:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
186:
8:
1035:list of Science-related deletion discussions
1033:Note: This debate has been included in the
1013:Note: This debate has been included in the
993:Note: This debate has been included in the
968:stand taken by other participating editors.
200:. PMC is not very selective in the sense of
563:"thereby influencing subject-areas such as"
526:article still needs some major improvements
1032:
1012:
992:
714:"SNI has influenced subject areas like..."
205:In sum, the journal is not indexed in any
743:Knowledge:Notability (academic journals)
551:Knowledge:Notability (academic journals)
326:Knowledge:Notability (academic journals)
955:I honestly believe that edits added by
237:FOUR NOTABLE-JOURNAL REFERENCES ADDED
7:
735:Journals influencing journals? Gush!
324:is not under discussion but rather
24:
602:FACTS, reference 4 (Cho YD et al
75:Surgical neurology international
67:Surgical neurology international
417:You don't need a bot for that:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1047:16:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
1027:16:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
1007:16:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
987:21:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
949:18:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
914:15:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
886:17:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
832:15:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
804:14:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
730:23:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
686:14:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
583:06:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
541:23:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
520:00:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
491:00:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
471:23:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
435:23:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
425:give all that information. --
407:23:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
382:23:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
341:23:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
313:22:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
291:22:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
268:22:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
249:22:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
231:14:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
61:08:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
1084:
1056:Please do not modify it.
356:Journal Citation Reports
32:Please do not modify it.
450:10 to 39 citations.
423:Science Citation Index
322:Researcher notability
708:. We would need a
48:The result was
1049:
1029:
1009:
957:user:71.28.60.176
783:original research
712:actually saying,
706:original research
474:
457:comment added by
59:
1075:
1058:
944:
933:user:Stalwart111
814:, let alone the
726:
579:
559:reliable sources
473:
451:
391:Knowing how many
286:
191:
190:
176:
128:
116:
98:
58:
56:
34:
1083:
1082:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1065:deletion review
1054:
940:
937:user:randykitty
724:
710:reliable source
577:
452:
359:got the lowest
282:
133:
124:
89:
73:
70:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1081:
1079:
1070:
1069:
1050:
1030:
1010:
976:
975:
962:
961:
952:
951:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
792:
779:
778:
777:
760:
738:
737:
691:
690:
689:
688:
675:
674:
673:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
613:
612:
611:
610:
597:
596:
595:
594:
586:
585:
530:
529:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
494:
493:
476:
475:
447:Google scholar
438:
437:
419:Google Scholar
396:
395:
387:
386:
385:
384:
361:impact factors
330:
329:
318:
317:
316:
315:
273:
272:
271:
270:
252:
251:
198:PubMed Central
194:
193:
130:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1080:
1068:
1066:
1062:
1057:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1031:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
991:
990:
989:
988:
984:
980:
974:
971:
970:
969:
967:
958:
954:
953:
950:
947:
945:
943:
938:
934:
930:
927:
926:
915:
911:
907:
902:
901:
900:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
883:
879:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
833:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
801:
797:
793:
790:
789:
784:
780:
775:
772:
768:
765:
761:
758:
755:
751:
748:
744:
740:
739:
736:
733:
732:
731:
728:
727:
721:
720:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
687:
683:
679:
676:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
608:
605:
601:
600:
599:
598:
593:
590:
589:
588:
587:
584:
581:
580:
574:
573:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
545:
544:
543:
542:
538:
534:
527:
524:
523:
522:
521:
517:
513:
498:
497:
496:
495:
492:
488:
484:
480:
479:
478:
477:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
448:
445:
442:
441:
440:
439:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
404:
400:
392:
389:
388:
383:
379:
375:
370:
366:
362:
358:
357:
351:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
338:
334:
327:
323:
320:
319:
314:
310:
306:
301:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
289:
287:
285:
279:
269:
265:
261:
256:
255:
254:
253:
250:
246:
242:
238:
235:
234:
233:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
203:
199:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
127:
123:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1055:
1052:
977:
972:
965:
963:
960:opportunity.
941:
928:
898:
876:
815:
811:
787:
734:
723:
718:
713:
702:verification
591:
576:
571:
562:
546:
531:
525:
510:
453:— Preceding
444:Back comment
443:
414:
397:
390:
364:
354:
349:
331:
321:
299:
283:
277:
275:
274:
236:
218:
211:WP:NJournals
206:
202:WP:NJournals
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
121:
49:
47:
31:
28:
935:as well as
816:whole field
160:free images
824:Randykitty
483:Randykitty
427:Randykitty
374:Randykitty
305:Randykitty
260:Randykitty
223:Randykitty
1061:talk page
1039:• Gene93k
1019:• Gene93k
999:• Gene93k
769:) and 9 (
278:Weak keep
217:. Hence:
207:selective
37:talk page
1063:or in a
979:Neuralia
942:Jguard18
906:Neuralia
878:Neuralia
820:WP:SYNTH
796:Neuralia
788:Stalwart
774:23041408
767:23262565
757:21206898
750:21206898
719:Stalwart
678:Neuralia
607:23660292
572:Stalwart
567:verified
533:Neuralia
512:Neuralia
467:contribs
459:Neuralia
455:unsigned
421:and the
399:Neuralia
333:Neuralia
284:Jguard18
241:Neuralia
119:View log
39:or in a
931:as per
415:Comment
369:h-index
350:Comment
300:Comment
166:WP refs
154:scholar
92:protect
87:history
973:Delete
966:Delete
929:Delete
555:WP:GNG
547:Delete
219:delete
215:WP:GNG
138:Google
96:delete
50:delete
394:areas
365:alone
348:(ec)
181:JSTOR
142:books
126:Stats
113:views
105:watch
101:links
55:slakr
16:<
1043:talk
1023:talk
1003:talk
983:talk
910:talk
882:talk
828:talk
800:talk
791:..!!
771:PMID
764:PMID
754:PMID
747:PMID
682:talk
604:PMID
537:talk
516:talk
487:talk
463:talk
431:talk
403:talk
378:talk
337:talk
309:talk
264:talk
245:talk
227:talk
174:FENS
148:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
812:Cho
725:111
578:111
213:or
188:TWL
117:– (
1045:)
1037:.
1025:)
1017:.
1005:)
997:.
985:)
912:)
897:-
884:)
830:)
802:)
684:)
569:.
539:)
518:)
489:)
469:)
465:•
433:)
405:)
380:)
372:--
339:)
311:)
303:--
276:*
266:)
258:--
247:)
229:)
221:.
168:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
52:.
1041:(
1021:(
1001:(
981:(
908:(
880:(
826:(
798:(
680:(
609:)
535:(
514:(
485:(
461:(
429:(
401:(
376:(
335:(
307:(
262:(
243:(
225:(
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
122:·
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.