Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body Image (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Body Image
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails GNG. Poorly referenced article. SMBMovieFan (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 09:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 13.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 09:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess the intention was to AfD Body Image based on the nom's recent edits JMWt (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Journal fails WP:GNG with no coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Poorly sourced? Yep, but that doesn't mean that there are no sources. The journal is indexed in the very selective databases Scopus, Social Sciences Citation Index, and MEDLINE, which is a clear pass of WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Indexing demonstrates notability per journals SNG. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Psychology. Skynxnex (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep If this was some predatory journal I would move towards deletion, but it's not just poorly sourced. Still passes WP:SNG.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 19:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It has been substantiated, by Randykitty and Elmidae in particular, that quality database indexing demonstrates notability per WP:NJOURNALS and WP:SNG. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have expanded the article and added independent references: WP:HEY. --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2022 (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.