Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Applied Biomedicine


 * 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. Courcelles 08:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Applied Biomedicine

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This young (2003) journal does not meet the General Notability Guideline, presently the only applicable guideline to achieve consensus. No secondary sources discuss this journal. Furthermore, its highest-cited article gets about 40 cites; I don't know what its impact factor is. Abductive (reasoning) 03:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral Open access journals are weird and some tend to catch up. I am guessing there are a lot of journals out there in the field so I doubt that this one will catch up. Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete WP:GNG isn't the only guideline; there is also Notability (academic journals) although it is an essay, not accepted policy. One of its criteria is what indexes list the journal, and on that criteria this is borderline. It is listed at Google Scholar, where its articles do get a few citations (41 in one case), although many get none. It is not indexed at PubMed, though its existence is acknowledged there . It claims to be indexed at Web Of Science but I could not find it there. It claims to be listed at Scopus but I don't have access to that database. All in all, not very notable. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Personally, I don't think Google Scholar does not contribute anything to notability (to the point that I don't think this should even be listed in journal articles). GS tries to be all inclusive and while that is perhaps a laudable goal, it does mean that being "selected for inclusion" by GS is rather meaningless. Scopus is slowly becoming a bit like GS, too. PubMed is only important in my eyes if inclusion is because of inclusion in Medline. Many open-access journals are automatically included in PubmedCentral, meaning about as much as being included in GS... --Crusio (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Being listed in databases did not achieve consensus as a method of determining notability. Even so, there is a rough correlation between treatment in secondary sources and being indexed by selective databases. I have found that I can judge journals' notability best using a Google Books search. The Book search may reveal real secondary sources about the journal, and a large number of returns indicates academics read it more than a little. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jujutacular  talk 05:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Besides some trivial databases (GS, DOAJ, etc), the journal is also included in some more discriminating ones (Web of Science, Current Contents, BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, Chemical Abstracts Service, EBSCO). --Crusio (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.