Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paediatric Nursing


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy  ( talk ) 07:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Paediatric Nursing

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and the this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, published by the Royal College of Nursing, listed in PubMed and one of the top journals in its field. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Listed at WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Inadequate article, but acceptable as a stub. The journal is an established journal, published in print since 1988, with a circulation of over 9000, according to Ulrich's, the standard source for such data. It is published by the leading UK scientific society in the field, and is published for the soiety RCN Publishingh, a division of the extremely prestigious international scientific publishers BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, the publishers of BMJ. It is included in the standard indexes: Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline (PubMed), and Scopus.  It is available online for 1999+ or 2000+ issues from all three  standard service, Proquest, Ebsco, and  Thomson Gale.  Articles are available from CISTI, the British Library, Information Express, Infotrieve, and IngentaConnect. This is a mainstream journal of obvious notability. To clarify the notability, I have added the above information to the article. I hope someone will soon add the journals infobox, the name of the editor in chief, and similar information. DGG (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the above two. II  | (t - c) 01:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep for a major peer-reviewed journal, and encourage the proposer in the future to do at least minimal research before bringing a dozen and a half newly created and referenced stubs to AfD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously notable in its field. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Other editors have done a good job of showing notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as previously mentioned, a very well known peer reviewed journal that passes WP:N and WP:V. and like whataIdoing stated, DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE ADDED A BUNCH OF STUBS for deletion!!!! Medicellis (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but expand. We need an open discussion as to whether all medical journals are automatically notable. JFW | T@lk  05:47, 13 July 2008 (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.