Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Medical Student Journal


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Australian Medical Student Journal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article dePRODded by creator without stated reason. PROD reason was "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals". This is still the case, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - 2 years old - - would tend to disagree not indexed - Trove shows it exists as a hard copy and an e copy - and the issn number itself verifies it is a legit publication SatuSuro 15:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I did not say "not indexed", but "not indexed in any selective database" (emphasis added). Having an ISSN is meaningless, this is easy to obtain and many utterly non-notable publications have one. --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge - with information about sister publication a year older - - clearly the faculties at rival universities are claiming Australian context - that is notable - that 2 unis are trying to publish such journals - perhaps otherwise can be subsumed into Medical Journals in Australia SatuSuro 15:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I cannot find any sources commenting on such a rivalry. In their absense, this would fail WP:V. --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment -  (If you read the ref that has been added to the AMSJ stub, the last line of the text implies as such) cripes veterinary and other medicines have similar situations over the last 90 years + where a faculty at on institution will claim national this and another will try the same and then you check publication history and one or other abosrobs the other down the line... - the simple publication info itself implies competition - otherwise there would have been a broad professional AMA (Australian Medical Association) centralised single periodical - they are generated by the larger competing universities - separately they might seem non notable - I still think the info about the mags (and their recent currency) is sufficient for a stub that doesnt have to be prodded or have afd attention..  . SatuSuro 15:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither of the two references that you added to the stub is independent or even substantial. The first is simply the home page of the AMSJ, the second is simply the home page of the other journal. Any speculation about an implied competition is WP:SYNTH at its worst. And even if this were not synthesis, who says that this purported rivalry is notable? Again: sources are lacking! --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Unfortunately, I don't see anything at this journal's web site that shows me this journal merits inclusion on Wikipedia. This journal does not appear to meet the notability standards on Wikipedia. I am sure this journal is informative and it does have a peer review process, but I don't think it has the level of editing and peer review that professional academic journals have. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:17, 18 January 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.