Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinical Risk

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) ––Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical Risk[edit]

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

Article on a minor journal, created by an employee of the publishers, with no reliable independent sources. The "references" are merely index descriptors. Not PubMed indexed, no impact factor. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~I'm not sure if this fails WP:NJOURNALS~~, which explains that "[t]he most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major citation indices". According to the journal's website, it is indexed by several major indexing services, including SCOPUS (which is specifically mentioned by WP:NJOURNALS as an example of a major citation index), EBSCO, and ProQuest. ~~I'm leaning toward keeping this, but I'm willing to be persuaded if someone can show me why this fails WP:NJournals.~~ -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COI, though... Guy (Help!) 23:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the relevant inquiry is whether the article passes WP:NJournals, and it looks like this article does pass. If there are problems with with COI or references, these should be resolved by editing the article rather than deleting it (see WP:ATD). I completely agree that COI editors shouldn't add content to articles about journals published by their employers, and I am also troubled by the lack of coverage of this journal in secondary sources, but it still looks like this passes WP:NJournals's notability requirements. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, I have concluded that this article passes WP:NJournals; I have updated my vote accordingly. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the relevant question is never whether a subject "passes" a subject-specific notability guideline, because those guidelines only tell us what sort of article is likely to get sufficient coverage in independent sources to allow us to write an article compliant with fundamental policy, ie. one whihc can be verified as neutral by reference to reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the Sage articles that I did not get around to cleaning yet. Nevertheless, COI is not a reason for deletion and can easily be addressed (see our journal article writing guide). Indexed in Scopus, which is selective and meets WP:NJournals. As for the COI, it is actually not that difficult to create a neutral article on an academic journal, even for a COI editor. Luke.j.ruby (who apparently is not with Sage anymore or has moved to other responsibilities, as he doesn't edit here any more) was a bit of an exception, but most people working for a publisher see that it is in their best interest to follow WP:JWG, so that articles won't get deleted as spam. I find their contributions generally useful, as it is less work to clean up an article if necessary than creating one from scratch... --Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2016 (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.