Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Healthcare Management


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Journal of Healthcare Management

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't really find any non-primary sources ABOUT this journal, much less in any detail. The GNG requires MULTIPLE reliable third party sources to cover a subject for it to be deemed notable. I'm not seeing how an impact factor alone determines notability and don't see it listed in our guidelines as automatically conferring notability. I can't find any specific Notability guideline that deals with this kind of publication... WP:BOOKS does not seem to. Journal is non-notable per WP guidelines. OrgoneBox (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Hmmm. This is only a passing mention, this includes more content about it, but is primary. This provides its impact rating as compared to similar journals, and suggests that it's not particularly influential in its field. This does include a bit of information. On the whole, while I'm not particularly familiar with this subject matter, I don't think there's enough here to pass WP:GNG. Willing to reconsider if new/better information comes to light, but leaning weak delete at this point. Hog Farm Bacon 18:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking comment, as I'm not familiar enough with academic journals to really be a judge of this. Hog Farm Bacon 18:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hog Farm, I feel like I'm in the same boat whenever these questions come up. I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NJOURNALS with flying colours, indexed in multiple selective databases and bibliographic services (e.g. Scopus, Social Sciences Citation Index). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this passes NJOURNALS. Scopus says that it's (currently) a middle-quintile journal in its field, which NJOURNALS indicates is considered "influential".  I do wonder how much of an article we could realistically write with the available sources, though.  Maybe writing about academic journals requires access to the sort of publications that only research librarians normally buy.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, not a part of our Notability guideline or any policy. The basis for notability on Wikipedia is outlined at WP:N and mopre succintly at SIGCOV. Essays don't take precendence over guidelines. OrgoneBox (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC).
 * See WP:1Q &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1Q is another essay. Essays have not met the consensus threshold to become a guideline, so insisting an essay trumps our own notability guideline flies in the face of process. We operate on WP:N, not agglomerations of essays. ♟♙ (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Fails all applicable notability guidelines. ♟♙ (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A Scopus-indexed ~65-year old journal, ranking 13/31 in the category of 'Leadership and Management' (and with other respectable rankings in other categories, which used to be higher in the past) more than passes notability criteria. It's literally been cited tens of thousands of times. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * None of that is anywhere in our Notability guideline. Essays have not met the consensus threshold to become a guideline, so insisting an essay trumps our own notability guideline flies in the face of process. We operate on WP:N, not whatever some person wrote that some people like. Maybe NJOURNALS should become part of the notability guideline, but he time to get that done was before this article was written and submitted for AfD, not during a deletion discussion. Please see also the second bullet point under "When participating, please consider the following:" in WP:DISCUSSAFD. Citing an essay and citation counts isn't a rationale to keep until those are a part of the guildeline, reach through consensus. ♟♙ (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is irrelevant, see WP:1Q. You want independent reliable sources saying this journal is important? You have them with both Scopus and Journal Citation Reports saying this is an important journal. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong. 1Q is yet another essay. And Database listings are not WP:RS. ♟♙ (talk)
 * Again, irrelevant. And under what weird reasoning at Scopus and Journal Citation Reports, by far the two most respected and trusted citation analytics databases/publications, not considered reliable sources? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument is that throwing out a couple of essays determines notability versus guidelines and policy which state the opposite? How silly. Index listings can't be used to determine notability much in the same way google hits and phone books can't. Hey, I'm in 10 phone books, I'm notable! Every single keep here flies in the face of our own guidelines and makes me question how many of you actually know our guidelines.♟♙ (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Those 'listings' are selective, being included in them is like being included in the Forbes 500. It means that the journal is considered relevant and that scholars are paying attention to you, and likewise you are ranked within that listing. These are not equivalent to phonebook listings, which are comprehensive listings. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * keep per Headbomb--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NJOURNALS isn't an official guideline or policy, but it is sensible advice, and I see no reason not to follow that advice here. Our documentation of the topic the journal covers is better for having an article on the journal. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:NJOURNALS and is a respectable and weighty enough serial to merit an article. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Alexbrn and Headbomb and others. Whispyhistory (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep What nonsense, even to suggest that a 60-year-old peer-reviewed journal by a major publishing house as reputable as Wolters Kluwer could be anything other than notable. And if this technically does fail the WP notability rules, which I doubt, then that in and of itself proves the rules really are not fit for purpose. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:Clearly notable. ♟♙ (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2020 (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.