Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
IntoThinAir (talk | contribs) Listing at WP:DELSORT under Medicine (FWDS) |
→Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing: reluctant keep - it may be a junk journal, but with an IF the criteria are met |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academic journals|list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Everymorning|Everymorning]] [[User talk:Everymorning|(talk)]] 15:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academic journals|list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Everymorning|Everymorning]] [[User talk:Everymorning|(talk)]] 15:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)</small> |
||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine|list of Medicine-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Everymorning|Everymorning]] [[User talk:Everymorning|(talk)]] 15:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine|list of Medicine-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Everymorning|Everymorning]] [[User talk:Everymorning|(talk)]] 15:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)</small> |
||
:'''Keep:''' Satisfies [[WP:JOURNALCRIT]] criterion C1 by having a JCI impact factor, which I assume it does as one is listed in the article. The content might be of little value, I don't deny, but the inclusion criteria for a WP article are clear on journals with impact factors. It is unfortunate that we are unable to include the view of such journals when it is well known within the academic community that they are publishers of nonsense and a home for cranks, but only as common knowledge and not as the sort of RS we'd need to comment in the article. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 16:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:03, 1 November 2016
Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing
- Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (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)
This is a low-impact crank journal run by people like Dean Radin and specialising in promotion of alternatives-to-medicine; it's widely mocked for its publication of outrageous nonsense but not, as far as I can tell, actually discussed in any meaningful way by reliable independent sources. I looked long and hard for any reality-based commentary and found only blogs. Oh, and RationalWiki, which is scathing of course. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Satisfies WP:JOURNALCRIT criterion C1 by having a JCI impact factor, which I assume it does as one is listed in the article. The content might be of little value, I don't deny, but the inclusion criteria for a WP article are clear on journals with impact factors. It is unfortunate that we are unable to include the view of such journals when it is well known within the academic community that they are publishers of nonsense and a home for cranks, but only as common knowledge and not as the sort of RS we'd need to comment in the article. EdChem (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)