Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gastrointestinal 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrointestinal Nursing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- GreenC 04:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. -- I was able to access multiple articles from this journal through EBSCOHost without issue and they seem to me to be on par with what would be expected from a nursing journal in regards to scientific quality of writing and research. This may be a small journal but articles from it are easily accessed via even google scholar. In rebuttal to Randykitty, if I'm reading what you're saying correctly about 'no independent sources', the articles I found were actually fairly well cited (13 citations for a 2 page article), further leading me to believe this journal has at least decent scientific quality. Heyinternetman (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EBSCOHost is an aggregate of 350-some databases, sort of a product brand sold to libraries as a package. Does it say what the origin database is? -- GreenC 01:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EBSCOHost is absolutely not selective enough to satisfy NJournals. And if there are some citatioIns that may mean that this journal has a shot at becoming notable in the future (but unfortunately, I broke my crystal ball, so I can't tell for sure). --Randykitty (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (though I am open to other information and may change my mind). The journal is indexed in SCOPUS, [1] and according to WP:NJOURNALS, "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 [which is that "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area."] is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus." Jinkinson talk to me 19:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep given the indexing in Scopus, which I missed (thanks Jinkinson). Scopus is indeed explicitly mentioned in NJournals, although I must say that I personally find Scopus to be less and less selective and have seen some really marginal journals get a listing with them. However, I defer to the opinion of our colleague DGG, who accepts listing in Scopus as sufficient evidence of notability. Note: I am not withdrawing the nom, as there is one other delete !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Like Randykitty, I too am beginning to get a little skeptical of the quality of the selection criteria for Scopus. In some fields, I don;t think we really have any adequate replacement for it as a criterion. Medicine is however not one of those--it is covered quite well by JCR. The question is whether we want to restrict coverage to journals of the JCR level of notability (plus newer journals that will inevitably be listed there).
Weak Keep . I also have started to become a little skeptical of the quality judgments being made by Scopus. In some fields, we have no practical alternative, because there is no other selective index at all. This is true of nursing and other applied journals, such as this one--they tend to be ignored my most indexes. Otherwise in biomedicine, for publications in English from the major science-publishing countries, the Web of Science group however does provide coverage at a somewhat greater level of selectivity. I am not sure whether we would want to restrict our coverage to that level, and I wouldn't like to make the decision here in an individual AfD, especially because the trend over the last 5 years has been for us to have increasingly broad coverage for scientific journals, partly on the argument that it helps the readers of WP. (that is of course not a formal reason, but it is in practice no irrelevant). DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.