Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WHO South-East Asia Journal of Public Health


 * 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. Notability not established. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 09:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

WHO South-East Asia Journal of Public Health

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator, who has posted a justification on the article talk page. Unfortunately, the reasons given are incorrect, as follows.
 * 1) "it meets the standard of fulfilling a historical purpose in terms of promoting the generation and dissemination of original research and learnings from policy & practice in a less-resourced and often overlooked region of the world". It has been long-standing consensus that having a scope that is claimed to be unique or important is not the "historic purpose" mentioned in criterion 3 of NJournals. Neither does a journal established in 2012 have a "significant history". Fails criterion 3.
 * 2) "I have also found references in PubMed, indicating the journal is internationally recognized". The article indeed claims that the journal is indexed in PubMed, giving as source a link to a PubMed search that renders a result containing 3 articles that appeared in this journal. All three of these hits display the mention "Free PMC Article". If we consult the catalogue of the National Library of Medicine, we see that this journal is in the catalog (see here), with the mentions "PubMed: Selected citations only" and "Not currently indexed for MEDLINE". MEDLINE is a selective database in the sense of criterion 1 (see note 1), but this journal is not in it. The three included articles that the PubMed search renders are there because the authors of those articles (perhaps because they were funded by NIH) uploaded them themselves into PubMed Central. PMC is not a selective database and, in addition, does not systematically index articles published in this journal (that's why there are only 3 hits). The article also linked to the article on the Index Medicus. This is incorrect, too. IM is a subset of MEDLINE and as the NLM catalogue entry shows, this journal is not included in it. Rather, it is included in the "Index Medicus of the South-East Asia Region", which aims to collect everything published about the area of interest and therefore is not a selective database in the sense of note 1, either. None of the other databases cited being selective, this appears to fail criterion 1, too.
 * 3) "other Wiki pages already link here". Wikilinks have no bearing on notability.

For the sake of being exhaustive, I also checked criterion 2. A Google Scholar search shows that a handful of articles from this journal have gathered a smattering of citations. The most cited article has 20 citations. This is a far cry from what we usually require to make a single academic notable, let alone a whole journal. Hence, this also fails criterion 2. In summary: PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 14:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 14:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Thank you Randykitty for your diligence. As previously mentioned on the article's talk page, having originally proposed this entry, I object to its deletion as I believe it meets the standard of fulfilling a historical purpose in terms of promoting the generation and dissemination of original research and learnings from policy & practice in a less-resourced and often overlooked region of the world. I would agree (reluctantly) to remove the categorization of this journal as "public health journal" but believe it should minimally remain in the category of "WHO academic journal". Indeed, I started this article when I saw a reference to the journal on another Wiki page with invitation to create the page since it did not already exist. Another option I could support would be to merge this article with that of another WHO academic journal with regional perspective. If there is no objection, I could undertake this. Guptan99 (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Categories are just a tool to aid in navigation and only contains existing articles. If the article is kept, it should be in the "WHO academic journals"cat. If it is deleted, it will not be in that cat. I ahve dealt with the "historic purpose" issue above. As far as merging goes, I have had a look at the cat and don't see any likely merge target. --Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * One potential merger could be as an entry for "WHO regional publications" citing this journal as well as other journals published by WHO regional offices (e.g. merging with existing articles from PAHO and the Middle Eastern Regional Office). I am not sure what would be the added value of a single larger article versus a couple of shorter, focused ones though. Guptan99 (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any sources on this subject, so that would become original research... --Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are already articles on a number of WHO journal publications, including Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, Human Resources for Health, and Pan American Journal of Public Health. The creation of an article on the WHO South-East Asia Journal of Public Health was intended to add to the existing list. Guptan99 (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We often have articles for a number of journals from a given publisher, but almost never all of them. Especially new journals (just like this one) do not meet our criteria and even journals from big publishers like Springer, Wiley, or Elsevier are never included "to make the list complete". Please see WP:NOTINHERITED: the fact that some of this publisher's journals are notable does not imply that all of them are notable. --Randykitty (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the Wiki policy is the fact that someone states a journal is "not notable" is not sufficient for deletion, but I am still not sure why not merge with another WHO regional publication as proposed above. I can do that if no objections. Guptan99 (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't, that's why I provided a more detailed nomination than just that. And from among the different WHO journals, none if really a logical merge target. --Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:TOOSOON to meet any of the WP:NJournals criteria, and in particular too recent to have a "historic purpose". No other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. per David E.  DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 31 July 2016 (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.