Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Chiropractic


 * 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, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic Chiropractic

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

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article about a web-only one makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Note: Several other journals follow, I am not grouping them as each stays or goes on its own notability vel non, but note any publication can call itself a medical journal, some among these are not peer reviewed, some are web-only, some defunct and some suffer several of these deficiencies - Yahoo and other online spaces have numerous groups devoted to talking and blogging about various hospitals, conditions, diseases, or medical care generally - just search for "autism", "cancer", or even "constipation"; those spaces aren't notable and either necessarily are the for-profit versions of the same... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no strong opinion on whether Dynamic Chiropractic is or isn't notable, but I am very interested in this discussion. We use articles from this publication for sourcing articles on Wikipedia, such as at Chiropractic.  But the question is, does Dynamic Chiropractic count as a reliable source?  Regardless of whether or not it is notable, should we be using it at all?  I look forward to opinions on this. --Elonka 21:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Elonka, that's really a discussion for the RS noticeboard not an AfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim. :)  And yes, RSN is a better venue, but I'm also curious about the notability factor.  Considering your own expertise, I'm very much looking forward to your own opinion on this particular periodical.  :) --Elonka 23:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Listed at WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Never read it, never cited it I'm afraid. It's not in my area. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read it, and have cited it. It may not meet WP:MEDRS, but for the claims it is used for, it shouldn't have to. However, that doesn't mean that I agree (or disagree) with any notability claims. A reference CAN be reliable without being notable, can't it? DigitalC (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it can; a map, an atlas, an almanac, a court docket, local newspaper, local telephone directory, most non-fiction books, articles, and journals fall into reliable sans notabiity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: For the record, Dynamic Chiropractic is not web-only, as stated by the nominator. DigitalC (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep 60,000 subscribers appears fairly substantial. Let's give this one a little more time to be fleshed out as well. II  | (t - c) 01:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a trade magazine not a journal. And a rather largely circulated trade magazine at that. This article should be treated no differently than other trade magazine articles such as Foodservice Equipment & Supplies, Gift Focus, Attire Accessories or Australian Dairy Foods. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep appears a significant trade magazine. Articleswithin it are unlikely to be of any value as RSs for   scientific theories, but t hat's not relevant to notability  DGG (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Levine, DGG. Edward321 (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Support closing these AfDs promptly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it a journal (as indexed by CINAHL), a newspaper (as claimed by the subject), or a trade magazine? DigitalC (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, STRONG SUPPORT closing all these d/t WP:SNOW, not the place for discussion in AfD's as stated above Medicellis (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I went ahead and added an infobox to the stub, along with an image. --Elonka 06:31, 13 July 2008 (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.