Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BMC Health Services Research


 * 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  Keep(non-admin closure) The only delete votes aside from the nominator argue that the article should be redirected until someone comes along and expands the article, I shall go do that! -Icĕwedg Ё  (ťalķ) 04:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

BMC Health Services Research

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database. The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --Elonka 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Listed at WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Elonka. II  | (t - c) 01:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to BMC journals until someone has time to write a more detailed article. Again, this is something that the proposer could have done, if he had taken a few seconds to do a little research before hitting the AfD button.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * redirect per whatamIdoing, again research is key!! Medicellis (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I went ahead and expanded the stub a bit, with an infobox and some links. It's still a very basic stub, but at least it's more on a par with other medical journal stubs now. --Elonka 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, listed on both PubMed and ISI. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Publications in the journal have been cited by mainstream media outlets, and whatever this is. PubMed also lists the journal as having nearly 700 citations from other indexed journals, which seems pretty decent to me for being around only seven years. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Listing in ISI is generally accepted as a sufficient indication of notability for journals in the sciences. DGG (talk)


 * 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.