Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hospitals-Meddelelser


 * 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   speedy keep. per withdrawn nomination JForget  22:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hospitals-Meddelelser

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Medical journal published from 1848-1856. Google search (although less appropriate for such an old journal) only shows WP and mirrors and a few Scandinavian library sites. No indication of any notability. Was deprodded with reason "a Google books search indicates that this was a highly-cited journal in its day". However, this search brings up catalogs and such and some publications that indeed cite articles from this journal, but I don't think this is enough to satisfy Notability (academic journals). In addition to the notability problems, there is the lack of verifiability. For instance, the article mentions an ISSN (which did not yet exist at that time), but I have only found this on a page of the library of the Karolinska Institute and have not been able to verify it otherwise. The only verifiable information available seems to be the journal name and the years it was published. This does not even seem to be enough for a stub... Crusio (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: "99-0872808-3" does not look like an ISSN ("an eight digit number, divided by a hyphen into two four-digit numbers") to me. Anyway, there seems to be one extra piece of information that is verifiable: see Carl Edvard Marius Levy. Perhaps we could redirect Hospitals-Meddelelser to Carl Edvard Marius Levy? — Miym (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: An ISSN could have been assigned by Ulrich's or the country's national library at any time after ISSN were introduced. I agree with Miym's observation that it does not look like an ISSN. There is a standard for turning an ISSN into a bar code, but I think that ISSN bar codes begin with a 7. I am inclined to keep the article, since there weren't that many scientific journals during the period when this one was published, and to assume that Notability (academic journals)'s criteria were written with present-day journals in mind. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In principle, I agree with that. But I don't see what we can write... --Crusio (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if we want to keep the article (instead of redirecting), perhaps we could mention the role of this journal in Contemporary reaction to Ignaz Semmelweis, see also footnote 88 here. This article might be also worth checking (could it be used as an example of an influential paper?). I wonder if we could extract some useful information from here, perhaps the claim that the journal was "influential" (I known, not really a realiable source)? Putting all these together, perhaps it could be just enough to for a stub? — Miym (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't think we should get hung up on a probably malformed ISSN - notability of a mid-nineteenth-century journal doesn't depend on its having an ISSN. We may not be able to write much on the basis of what is freely available online, but, again, that's not the requirement for notability. The Google Books search shows that there's almost certainly enough coverage of the subject: it just needs someone to look up the books and do the work, for which there is no deadline. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep-If: From what I've read here, this may be a candidate for my made up doctrine of "obscure but notable." An encyclopedia isn't supposed to advertise but it is supposed to make more accessible that which others have found notable. So, if the claims to notability even if they be obscure dead tree sources with some lasting impact or note, this seems to be a reasonable if briefly covered topic. I guess I always try to ask " is there enough RS coverage to let you write a reasonable article?" and this sounds as if it would be short but of archival value. I wouldn't oppose redirect if a better article can be written and statements comparing and contrasting journals or the situation at the time make a significant contribution that would be silly in an isolated article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Given that it was started by a major internationally known person in the subject  at its time, it is worth an article. The  US National Library of Medicine Catalog lists it, as OCLC 50352611, and see WorldCat .   DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to Phil Bridger the article now at least looks like a decent stub. However, I fear that it will never develop further than that, given the absolute lack of sources. But given the evidence for notability, I withdraw my nomination to delete. I suggest that Miym's suggestion to merge and redirect to Carl Edvard Marius Levy deserves perhaps some more thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusio (talk • contribs)
 * 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.