Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPlasty


 * 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. Both sides of the debate here have valid points; at this time, overall consensus is for the article to be retained. In this instance arguments to retain the article are outweighing to those to delete it in relation to WP:NJOURNALS. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 20:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

EPlasty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural nomination originally PRODed this with the rationale
 * Non-notable journal. Tagged for notability for almost 2 years. Apparently only indexed in PubMed Central, which is not a selective database in the sense of WP:NJournals. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but it seems like the question of notability warrants more than a PROD. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure whether a formal !vote of me is still needed, but just in case: Delete given the above PROD reason. And forgive me, but I'm not really sure why a PROD couldn't do the job... --Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The main cause of my unease is that this seems, at least on its face value, as a legit journal, which seems to be relatively well-cited (e.g., to pick some article randomly) that's been around for a while (~13 years). I would find it very surprising that it's only indexed in PMC, or that it really does fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it is in none of the Thomson Reuters databases (see Journal Master List), nor is it included in MEDLINE (see NML catalog). It is in PubMedCentral (see here), but that includes almost any OA journal that has some relevance to medicine and therefore does not qualify as a "selective" database in the sense of WP:NJournals. The journal's own website boasts about inclusion in PubMedCentral (and, hence, also PubMed), so I would assume that if they are included in any other database that I may have missed, that they would mention that. By the way, Google Scholar(searching for "Eplasty") indicates that only a handful of articles in this journal have ever been cited, but the vast majority was not cited even once. --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What about Ulrich's? Also a GScholar search seems to indicate articles relatively well cited. First page of results shows several in the 30+ cites. 10th page of results has 50% of articles cited, around 4-5 times when they are. I'm just not getting why it (apparently) doesn't have any more coverage, or lacks an IF. I mean I'm no surgeon, but I fail to see any of the red flags for non-notable / unreliable journals. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ulrich's strives for completeness and is therefore not very selective either. It can be used as a source for information on a journal, but does not convey notability. Looking through the GS results, it still looks to me like the great majority of articles don't get cited or only very little (and surgery is high-citation density field). Nobody is saying that this is one of the predatory OA journals cropping up all over the place, but I don't see any evidence of real notability either. --Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to meet WP:NJournals. It is frequently cited by other reliable sources. On Google Books, I found 225 hits for "EPlasty", 48 hits for "Journal of Burns and Wounds" , and 58 hits for "J Burns Wounds" when removing "Chin J Burns Wounds Surface Ulcers" . Furthermore, around 12 pages link to this one (WP:MANYLINKS) (full disclosure: I have added links). --Edcolins (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment With all due respect, but I don't find those citation figures very impressive at all. If a single scientist had racked up that amount of citations during a 10 or 11 year career, we would not find him notable based on his citation record alone (see WP:PROF), let alone a whole journal publishing much more than any single scientist ever could. A low-end journal in this field, publishing the number of articles this journal does, should have that amount of citations per year, let alone over its whole existence... --Randykitty (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. The criterion "2. The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources" in WP:NJournals is rather difficult to apply. Indeed, how frequently should a journal be cited? The essay does not really help. When I searched for occurrences of "ePlasty", "Journal of Burns and Wounds", etc. within Wikipedia, I found around ten occurrences, which is not too bad in my opinion. I have checked who inserted these references and I could not see any "promotional" pattern. This means that random contributors seem to have added these ten occurrences or so. To me, this is a clear sign that this journal is, to a certain extent, notable. Having an article seems therefore justified, and will help Wikipedia readers to quickly find information about the journal, without having to rely on external sources. --Edcolins (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem for NJournals is that no fixed numbers can be given, as much depends on the particular field. Mathematics, for example, is a low citation density field and citation counts that are impressive in that field would be quite unimpressive in a high citation density field like surgery (note that if EPlasty were a mathematics journal, I still don't think the citation counts would meet NJournals' criteria...)
 * Anyway, I have to admit that I strongly disagree with the essay that you mention (WP:MANYLINKS). I understand the reasoning behind it, but WP itself cannot be a measure of whether something is notable or not. If we would accept this as a keep argument, the floodgates would be open for every predatory OA journal out there (even though I absolutely agree that this moniker doesn't apply to EPlasty). The only thing a predatory publisher would have to do is create a dozen socks that each do some edits and then add references to different articles (so that people don't suspect them of being socks) and now suddenly their journal is notable. I'm sorry, I don't buy that (I'm not saying that that is what happened here, of course). I can live with the fact that a source is perhaps reliable, but at the same time not notable enough for an independent article. --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, the number of occurrences of "ePlasty" within Wikipedia shows that some readers are likely to search for information about the journal (considering that, from these occurrences, I was not able to detect an attempt to promote the journal, i.e. to construct a notability that wouldn't exist)... This in turn means that the journal is worthy of inclusion. --Edcolins (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, using WP to establish notability is the snake biting its own tail. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this issue and see what the closing admin thinks of this argument. --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. Let's see what others think. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. As a quick experiment, I searched for review articles on Pubmed. Scrolling to the bottom of the first page of 20 results took me back to 2010 Jan 27. That article has been cited five times, in three different journals on PMC alone in the intervening 42 months. Its author has earlier and later papers published in very notable journals, e.g. Am Fam Physician and Lancet. I don't really smell a problem here, other than the possibility that Thomson may have a distaste for open journals.LeadSongDog come howl!  16:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no sign that Thomson has "a distaste for open journals": many OA journals are covered by them (all PLOS journals, almost all BMC journals that have existed for more than 2 years, and so on). And I'm not contesting that article in the journal do get cited. It's just that the citation rates overall are incredibly low (and 5 cites really isn't all that much). That an author has also published in other, notable journals, is a rather twisted reasoning running foul of WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, note that Scopus, although much less selective than Thomson, doesn't list this either. As for "smelling a problem", the only problem I smell here (and really the only one that we need to concern ourselves with) is a total lack of any sign of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although the citation rates on Google Scholar do cause me to reconsider, I am thinking these citation rates do not tell the whole story. For example, since it does not appear to be indexed in any selective databases, yet some articles do have citations, there could be something going on. To me this lack of indexing and having citation rates is cause for concern.


 * Also, I plugged in "surgery" as a search term on the TR Master Journal List . There are 115 surgery journals on this list. How many citations do these journals (or some of these journals) have?


 * Well, first take a look at American Journal Of Surgery . Citation rates of the first nine articles: 1,500; 869; 99; 148; 92; 239; 549; 249; and 167. Here is "Annals of Surgery" and the first five listings: 1904, 680, 394, 449, and 705.
 * However, "Aesthetic Surgery Journal" does not appear to be as highly cited . Still, maybe the point is these are indexed in selective databases, and in my opinion, they are much more trustworthy publications. Furthermore, these TR indexed journals easily fufill notability requirements. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Anals of Surgery"? Remind me to never ever subscribe to that particular journal. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep When a plausible case can be made for notability of a non-BLP, as above, the disagreement should be resolved by retention of the article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This journal is borderline, and I think that for journals that are apt to be cited in WP we should keep borderline cases, because people trying to judge something about the reliability of information here need to know something about the sources used for articles. Additionally, I'm judging by a criterion  which I used and taught through all my career, which is that many of the articles are from first-rate places, such as Stanford and Harvard, as the current affiliation of the principal authors. &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC).
 * Comment I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with the arguments put forward in the last 2 !votes. The !vote by DavidLeighEllis has no basis whatsoever in any policy or guideline. As for the remarks by DGG, I respectfully disagree. The journal is not boderline. It is not indexed in any selective database. There is not a single reliable source. As for the argument (also put forward by others above), that being cited in WP shows notability, I couldn't disagree stronger. WP is not and cannot be an indication of notability (if only it's not a WP:RS...) Accepting this argument would create a very dangerous precedent. And whether or not the authors who published in this journal are from notable institutions or are notable themselves is immaterial, as notability is not inherited. --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please note I struck my comment about Google Scholar citation rates giving me pause. Sorry to say but I am not impressed with the citation rates when compared to other journals which have been deemed notable on Wikipedia. What I mean is, the citation rates appear to be over 20 for the first nine articles and only two or three more with comparable citation rates.


 * Conversely, returning to the citation rates of the notable journals I pointed out above, it can be seen that these have citation rates that are consistently higher - even the "Aesthetic Surgery Journal" here. In other words EPlasty does not have a significant impact in its field as per NJournals. Especially when compared to surgery journals that are not plastic surgery journals here. (I believe EPlasty publishes both surgery related and plastic surgery related).


 * Therefore, please note the Google Scholar citation rates of the journals listed above. I am adding the links here for convenience: "American Journal of Surgery", "Annals of Surgery" , and the surgery journals on the TR Master List.


 * Furthermore, no reliable third party sources can be found that discuss this journal as a topic, per WP:N. Hence, it does not have independent significant coverage. The books on Google Books do not appear to discuss this journal as a topic, so these cannot be deemed as reliable sources. Also, it is not known how reliable these books are as reputable medical publications.


 * Since, this journal is not indexed in any selective database and it does not have an impact factor (per WP:NJournals), it must then satisfy notability criteria per WP:N. Likewise, Wikipedia has developed standards that are embedded in the notability concept. It Hence, this journal is supposed to have significant coverage in the press, media, or selective databases  as a requirement for the following reasons:


 * Reliable sources ensure "we are not posting" random or indiscriminate collections of information.
 * Independent sources ensure a neutral point of view, rather than a promotional view often presented on a website with vested interest. Hence, Wikipedia does not exist to promote entities or organizations. We are not a primary source.


 * Which leads me to also say, Wikipedia is not a reliable source and cannot be considered a reliable source. Therefore, it cannot be considered an indication of notability. Allowing this would say to me that Wikipedia is starting to lack standards for inclusion. In fact, this would effectively undermine standards if the bar for inclusion were being on Wikipedia. Editors are not allowed to cite other Wikipedia articles to help build new articles. That is almost a golden rule for any editor that edits or creates articles.


 * Finally, I agree that in this case, wp:not inherited applies no matter the notability of the institutions from which some authors hail. And, I also agree that User talk:DavidLeighEllis did not actually make a statement based on policies or guidelines, or even including notability. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I'd say WP:NJOURNALS is allowing it to be kept here, although it is close to the borderline. I also recommend an expansion of the article to show there is enough notable material.  Rcsprinter  (yak)  @ 10:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you mind explaining how you think this meets NJournals? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 20 August 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.