Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Society for Bipolar Disorders


 * 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 No consensus after rewrite corrects some substantial problems. Xoloz 14:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

International Society for Bipolar Disorders

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No matter how nice the organization's mission is, we still need independent references to assert it's notability on Wikipedia. Currently, this article does not satisfy WP:NOTE Chupper 23:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and also WP:RS. Nen  yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 01:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and above.Harlowraman 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep that they run international conferences and publish a major journal is sufficient, and both are easily verifiable. The article is however dreadful PR spam, and should be cut down to size. DGG (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the comments sir. Do you have any references from independent sources stating that this is a major journal?  If so, it would be appreciated!  Thanks, Chupper 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment 8/17/07 Additional sources have been added, including a link to the IRS website where official 501(c)3 status can be proven. We hope to have quite a few sources, including information from medical organizations and journals, listed by next week. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isbd (talk • contribs).
 * Comment While your contributions are appreciated, there may be a conflict of interest here. Wikipedia strongly discourages these types of edits.  See Conflict of interest. Chupper 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per DGG. I am going to be bold and hack it up. Bearian 22:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, can somebody else take a crack at fixing this mess so it meets the Heymann standard? Bearian 22:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rewrite Notable superspam. ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - It may not yet be a good article, but it appears to publish a serious academic journal, for Blackwell would not publish a trivial journal. The articel may indeed be a stub (as it is tagged), but should certainly be retained. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs).
 * Comment - We still need references stating that this is "not a trivial journal", or in other words, passes notability guidelines. Chupper 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That information is in the article itself. It is included in Web of Science (and Journal citation Reports) and all the medical indexes. In JCR is has a 2006 impact factor of 3.5, 26th out of 95 in all of psychiatry--and that's out of the 95 selected top[ journals in psychiatric included in JCR. (the article has 11th in a narrower category). I think that answers your question 05:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response - Right, I've found some of the information in the article itself, but its not referenced. That's why I'm wondering - can you reference where you found this information and include it in the article?  Right now the only reference this article has is a link to an IRS website stating its a charitable organization.  That, alone, is not enough to show Verifiability or Notability...  Sorry to be annoying on this topic.  It's just that you seem to know where this information is coming from, and if we could include these references in the article, most of these issues would be resolved. Thank you sir. Chupper 13:04, 21 August 2007 (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.