50.201.195.170 (talk) indeed |
Randykitty (talk | contribs) →JAMA Network Open: cmts (2) |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
*'''Don't Delete?''' Journal is young but appears to meet [[WP:GNG]] criteria through multiple media pickups of its content to date. Examples include NPR's Analysis Finds Geographic Overlap In Opioid Use And Trump Support In 2016 [[https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/23/622692550/analysis-finds-geographic-overlap-in-opioid-use-and-trump-support-in-2016?ft=nprml&f=]] and Time's Opioids Are Now Responsible for 1 in 5 Deaths Among Young Adults [[http://time.com/5299363/opioids-young-adults-deaths/]] (separate articles). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mrmxzptlk|Mrmxzptlk]] ([[User talk:Mrmxzptlk#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mrmxzptlk|contribs]]) 01:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
*'''Don't Delete?''' Journal is young but appears to meet [[WP:GNG]] criteria through multiple media pickups of its content to date. Examples include NPR's Analysis Finds Geographic Overlap In Opioid Use And Trump Support In 2016 [[https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/23/622692550/analysis-finds-geographic-overlap-in-opioid-use-and-trump-support-in-2016?ft=nprml&f=]] and Time's Opioids Are Now Responsible for 1 in 5 Deaths Among Young Adults [[http://time.com/5299363/opioids-young-adults-deaths/]] (separate articles). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mrmxzptlk|Mrmxzptlk]] ([[User talk:Mrmxzptlk#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mrmxzptlk|contribs]]) 01:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:*'''Comment''' Those media pickups mention articles published in the journal, but apart from an in-passing mention do not say anything about the journal itself. These mentions are encouraging signs that this journal maay in the future become notable, but for the moment this still is [[WP:TOOSOON]]. As an aside, I notice from your edit history that you basically only edit articles related to AMA journals. If you have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] (or are [[WP:PAID|paid for your contributions here]]), you should disclose that on your user page. Thanks. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 09:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC) |
:*'''Comment''' Those media pickups mention articles published in the journal, but apart from an in-passing mention do not say anything about the journal itself. These mentions are encouraging signs that this journal maay in the future become notable, but for the moment this still is [[WP:TOOSOON]]. As an aside, I notice from your edit history that you basically only edit articles related to AMA journals. If you have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] (or are [[WP:PAID|paid for your contributions here]]), you should disclose that on your user page. Thanks. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 09:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
Keep. I don't see that any deletionists have presented an argument that refers to ''policies or guidelines''. Just links to essays. Strongly suggests that the deletionists don't have one. I do see a veiled ad hominem attack (it's telling/consistent that this criticism is here rather than on the user's page.) "Thanks." --[[Special:Contributions/50.201.195.170|50.201.195.170]] ([[User talk:50.201.195.170|talk]]) 17:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. I don't see that any deletionists have presented an argument that refers to ''policies or guidelines''. Just links to essays. Strongly suggests that the deletionists don't have one. I do see a veiled ad hominem attack (it's telling/consistent that this criticism is here rather than on the user's page.) "Thanks." --[[Special:Contributions/50.201.195.170|50.201.195.170]] ([[User talk:50.201.195.170|talk]]) 17:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
:*'''Comment''. Actually, policies ''have'' been mentioned. You're free to ignore NJournals because it is an essay. In that case, you'll have to show that this meets [[WP:N]], which ''is'' a guideline. To turn things around: you have not offered any policy or guidelines-based arguments to justify your "keep" !vote, which therefore is likely to be ignored by the closing admin. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 17:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
How about soliciting some input from relevant [[FLOSS]] communities here? Odd that not one is among the half dozen that have been flagged. For fuck sake, I don't see that the user who created the page in mainspace, Nstru, was even notified. --[[Special:Contributions/50.201.195.170|50.201.195.170]] ([[User talk:50.201.195.170|talk]]) 17:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC) |
How about soliciting some input from relevant [[FLOSS]] communities here? Odd that not one is among the half dozen that have been flagged. For fuck sake, I don't see that the user who created the page in mainspace, Nstru, was even notified. --[[Special:Contributions/50.201.195.170|50.201.195.170]] ([[User talk:50.201.195.170|talk]]) 17:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' Because we're not talking software here? And, as is completely proper, the article creator (you) ''was'' notified. Please, some [[WP:AGF]] here... --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 17:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:47, 16 July 2018
JAMA Network Open
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- JAMA Network Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I may be entirely wrong here (not conversant with this criterion yet), but this appears not to satisfy WP:NJOURNALS. As far as I can see, this journal is not indexed in any selective database (and the LoC hasn't heard of it either, despite the infobox entry). Being a 2018 production it's neither "frequently cited" nor "historically important". Am I missing something? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete The nom has nailed it. WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet NJOurnals or GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with Elmidae: too new for the usual criteria to apply. Basie (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON Snowycats (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Don't Delete? Journal is young but appears to meet WP:GNG criteria through multiple media pickups of its content to date. Examples include NPR's Analysis Finds Geographic Overlap In Opioid Use And Trump Support In 2016 [[1]] and Time's Opioids Are Now Responsible for 1 in 5 Deaths Among Young Adults [[2]] (separate articles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmxzptlk (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Those media pickups mention articles published in the journal, but apart from an in-passing mention do not say anything about the journal itself. These mentions are encouraging signs that this journal maay in the future become notable, but for the moment this still is WP:TOOSOON. As an aside, I notice from your edit history that you basically only edit articles related to AMA journals. If you have a conflict of interest (or are paid for your contributions here), you should disclose that on your user page. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see that any deletionists have presented an argument that refers to policies or guidelines. Just links to essays. Strongly suggests that the deletionists don't have one. I do see a veiled ad hominem attack (it's telling/consistent that this criticism is here rather than on the user's page.) "Thanks." --50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- 'Comment. Actually, policies have been mentioned. You're free to ignore NJournals because it is an essay. In that case, you'll have to show that this meets WP:N, which is a guideline. To turn things around: you have not offered any policy or guidelines-based arguments to justify your "keep" !vote, which therefore is likely to be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
How about soliciting some input from relevant FLOSS communities here? Odd that not one is among the half dozen that have been flagged. For fuck sake, I don't see that the user who created the page in mainspace, Nstru, was even notified. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Because we're not talking software here? And, as is completely proper, the article creator (you) was notified. Please, some WP:AGF here... --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)