Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surgical neurology international


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 08:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Surgical neurology international

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable journal. There are currently three references in the article. The first one is to an editorial published in the journal and archived in PubMed Central. PMC is not very selective in the sense of WP:NJournals and almost any new OA journal will get indexed (rather like DOAJ). The second reference is to Reuters, with the byline "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." The third one is a press release from a university about one of their faculty, mentioning this journal in-passing. In sum, the journal is not indexed in any selective database and there are no independent third party references other than one in-passing mention. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * FOUR NOTABLE-JOURNAL REFERENCES ADDED I hope the new four notable-journal references just added provide sufficient support to the notability of the journal and revert WP:AfD Neuralia (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In order for one single researcher to be notable, hundreds of citations are needed. Just four (4) citations to a complete journal are basically, if that is possible at all, proof of lacking notability. --Randykitty (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

* Weak keep nobtablity was inserterted however the article still needs some major improvements  Jguard18 Critique Me  22:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure whether you meant "inserted" or "asserted". If the former, see my comment above. If the latter, assertion of notability is ground for rejecting speedy deletion, but does not mean anything in an AFD unless it can be supported by reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Neuralia (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Researcher notability is not under discussion but rather Notability (academic journals). Criteria clearly state "If a journal meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through independent reliable sources (NO NUMBER OF REFERENCES MENTIONED), it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article" AND ALSO "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area". The fact that only four notable-journal references were added doesn't mean these are the only ones existing, but it does mean that the rules are being met.
 * (ec) Comment Whatever you may think, the analogy is correct. We are not talking here about in-depth discussion of this journal in the references that you provided, but simple "citations" to single articles published in the journal. If you check GScholar, you will see that hardly any article published in this journal gets cited even once. None of the "notable journal references" that you added claim or confirm that this journal is considered to be notable. If a single one of my articles gets only 4 citations, I'm rather disappointed. But here we're not talking about a single researcher or a single article, but a whole journal and you would expect that to generate citation rates that are significantly higher. The three journals that according to the Journal Citation Reports got the lowest impact factors (out of 199 journals) got 133, 44, and 162 citations over 2012 alone, so this one doesn't come even near the lowest ranked journals. So even if there would be 100 citations to this journal instead of 4, that would still be dismal. NJournals does not mention any numbers, because citation rates depend on the field so no fixed number can be given. In humanities, articles/journals/researchers get cited much less than in high-citation fields like surgery and neurology. A humanities researcher might be found notable with an h-index of 10 and a couple of hundred citations, a neurologist or surgeon would need an h around 20 and over thousand citations at least. Single-digit citation rates? Whatever the field, discussing that further is a waste of time and breath. --Randykitty (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Neuralia (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Knowing how many SNI articles have been referred by notable journals would probably require a bot to examine every article case. Howeve this is not required by the rules, they only demand proof that the journal articles have influenced the subject areas
 * Comment You don't need a bot for that: Google Scholar and the Science Citation Index give all that information. --Randykitty (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Back comment Google scholar results give an average of about 10 citations per SNI article, quite a few of them showing >10 to 39 citations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuralia (talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see that at all. Just click the link at the top of the page. --Randykitty (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar search link including citations (....//is.gd/wzZgpP)

Neuralia (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Neuralia (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * article still needs some major improvements like which? Why not be specific about it, thanks !


 * Delete - for all of the commentary and claims there still seems to be a lack of basic understanding as to how Wikipedia works, including the citation of user essays like Notability (academic journals) as if it were a policy or guideline. The reality is that the only "official" standard that should be applied here is the same one as for every other subject - WP:GNG. That means we require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The coverage included thus far (like press releases) is not sufficient in my view. I don't personally think a citation count (for a publication that generates them) is really relevant anyway. Produce significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and we'll talk. Until then, claims like, "thereby influencing subject-areas such as", should be removed until they can be properly verified. Stalwart 111  06:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Claims verification, in-depth analysis, PART 1


 * FACTS, reference 4 (Cho YD et al )


 * -Reference comes from a technically "notable" journal indexed in SCI


 * -Authors adscribed to Seoul National University Hospital,Korea


 * -study was supported by grant A111101 of Korea Ministry for Health, Republic of Korea


 * -Reference to SNI paper cited refers to "anatomic variations in parent arteries...displayed by the aneurysms" citing a technical assessment of the level of difficulty of a surgical procedure alternatives, which is critical information to the research performed and reported in such reference 4


 * -Main and corresponding author (Cho YD) bears no validable relationship to the journal unded discussion (SNI). Conversely Cho YD (of Seoul, Korea) appears as MAIN AUTHOR of at least 20-30 papers in notable academic journals ON SUBJECT-AREA claimed to have been influenced by the SNI-refered article.
 * Neuralia (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but citation of a paper in one journal by a paper in another (no matter how credible the authors) is not verification that the first journal "influenced" the second. As it stands, a claim like that is pure original research. We would need a reliable source actually saying, "SNI has influenced subject areas like...". In fact, a quote like that in a reliable source would probably go a long way toward substantiating notability. And that's kind of the point - you still haven't addressed the wider issue of notability, in my view, which is far more important than the inclusion of a promotional line or two. Their inclusion (or not) will be resolved by the deletion of the article if you can't substantiate notability so that is very much a secondary concern. Stalwart 111  23:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Journals influencing journals? Gush!
 * -Nobody is saying that the first journal influenced the second..! What it influenced was the development of the SUBJECT area, as explicitly requires the criteria written in Notability (academic journals). If in the introduction of the citing research article Dr Cho YD cited SNI article as a basis for the planning of his research, this is definitive proof that by publishing  SNI influenced the development of the subjet-area (not another journal for gush-sake!).
 * -Similar arguments can be ellaborated for the cases of references 8 and 9 . I am afraid one has to read the referred articles and understand the subjects and the the contexts to assess the significance of the citation. I will develop further tha cases for these 2 references ( 8 and 9 ) in separate comments. By the way the discussion  seems to be developing beautifully to favor notability (and it hasn't finished!).
 * - The fact that we are bringing research contents to discuss the justification of notable citations of SNI articles does not infringe Wikipedia policy not to serve as a means of publishing original research, let's not confuse words and concepts my dear Stalwart..!!
 * - Let's make clear that the notable-journal references included ( 8 and beyond) are by no means the only existing proof of SNI articles influencing subject areas. They are just examples, which suffice the purpose.!! Neuralia (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please be serious. Cho et al. cite one article from this journal once in their introduction. That is by no means proof that this article influenced Cho, let alone the whole field. If you have any idea how scientific publishing works, you'll know that a single citation doesn't mean zilch. In addition, as pointed out above by others, drawing such a conclusion from this citation constitutes WP:SYNTH. What you need is a reliable source that says "the journal SNI has significantly influenced the field of foo", or hundreds if not thousands of citations showing that many authors have been reading a lot of the articles published in this journal. At this point, there is absolutely zero indications of notability. I think this point has been made sufficiently, so I will not comment again here unless someone manages to come up with clear evidence of notability, in which (unlikely) case I'll withdraw my nomination. --Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please be sensible. If you place the following internet search: "the journal Science has significantly influenced the field of" or "the journal Nature has significantly influenced the field of" YOU GET ZERO (00) results. According to your criterion neither of these two top academic journals (Science/Nature) have ever influenced any subjet area whatsoever, and that would be an absurd conclusion. Nobody (except yourself) has ever stated anywhere anything of that type.

Neuralia (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - Quoting other people's work imply recognition of its influence
 * For exmaple, if in a verifiable source President Obama quoted a phrase by Whitman or Thoreau (shall we say) one does not need an explicit statement by Obama saying that his own thought has been influenced by either one of those two writers. The influence is IMPLICITLY evident..!!! Neuralia (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as per user:Stalwart111 as well as user:randykitty Jguard18 Critique Me  18:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

For that specific reason (not for lack of notability of the journal) I join the Delete stand taken by other participating editors.
 * I honestly believe that edits added by user:71.28.60.176 17:34, 18 February 2014‎ (+3,113)‎ weakened considerably the case for the survival of the article strictly for reasons of wide UNVERIFIABILITY and lack of appropriate sourcing of the contents added at that opportunity.

Neuralia (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2014 (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.