Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Surgical Radiology


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Surgical Radiology

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Deprodded by article creator, who restored an earlier version with exhaustive lists of editorial board and executive officers of the publisher. Prod reason was "New journal, with just 1 published issue yet. Article creation very premature. Not listed in any selective, major databases. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG." Nothing has changed since then, no independent reliable sources added. Utterly non-notable, if it becomes notable in the future, article can be re-created. Crusio (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. While the editorial board composition suggests that the journal may become notable, at the moment is not indexed in any of the standard places and does not satisfy WP:Notability (academic journals), not to mention WP:N. In fact, the article gives the impression of having been created specifically to advertise the journal's existence. Overall, delete. Nsk92 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (or Userfy if creator requests to ease possible re-creation in the future). None of the references are independent reliable sources as required by WP:Notability; Google News & Books draw complete blanks, as does Google Scholar once you exclude the website of the journal itself. Qwfp (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am the publisher for the journal. While we obviously believe the journal to be noteworthy, it is not yet indexed in Scopus or Pubmed and so does not meet Wikipedia criteria yet. We will recreate the entry at a later date once we satisfy all criteria. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.52.9 (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This journal does not comply with international standards for scientific publications. There are serious issues such as case reports being labeled as original articles which makes the reader believe these are original studies. Furthermore, the first 20 pages of its FIRST and only issue are only advertisements.
 * *Delete. Nearly the entire editorial team comes from only three institutions/cities within one country. Might raise suspicion of bias and offend an international audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.10.195(talk) 01:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't see the problem with labeling case studies as original articles, that's what they are... The limited geographical distribution of the editorial board will cause problems for the journal when they apply for coverage in PubMed and (even more so) ISI, but I don't think this is important for the discussion here, which concerns notability in the sense used by WP. --Crusio (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2010 (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.