Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JAMA Network Open

JAMA Network Open

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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)

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. edit: Not quite - nearly all their "WP:" links were to essays; 0 linked to policy (WP:N is NOT linked to!); one guideline was linked to. 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)

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)

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)

Wow. Please improve your reading (comprehension) skills. Either they're a problem, and/or you're failing to AGF, and/or you're being dishonest. Reread: I don't see that the user who created the page in mainspace*, Nstru, was even notified. Reread my sentence with the PLURAL word "essays". Let's first look at the instructions the nominator should have followed, but didn't, shall we? From the instructions - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion:

• First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

Done? Nope, nope, Nope. Someone needs to be smacked for not following the instructions? FLOSS isn't 'just' about software. Hello, open content? Over and out. If Wikipedia:Guide to deletion had been followed, none of us would be here. This should be speedily kept and those instructions should be followed. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Simmer down and stop the histrionics; this is just about the surest way to be ignored in one of these discussions. WP:NJOURNAL is what is generally being used to decide the notability of journals, and so it is here. And as noted above, WP:GNG is not being perceived as met either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, instructions were followed. Nstru is not the person who created the article° (that was you), they were the editor who moved it to article space. As for AGF, what makes you think that the nom did not adhere to WP:BEFORE? They could have just added a bland statement "I did BEFORE and didn't find anything", but hardly anybody does so in these discussions. Of course, if you know of sources that discuss this publication in-depth, which are easy to find and should have turned up in a serious BEFORE, then you might ask the nom why they didn't see this, but so far you only come with angry comments that the article you created should not be deleted and that we're all being terribly unjust to you. And which "open content" community would you like to have been notified? I may be mistaken, but as far as I know, there is no delsort list in that area (even if the most important aspect of this journal would have been that it is OA-it isn't). Tyw7 sorted this in quite a diverse collection of subjects, so that a large number of independent editors are aware of this discussion. Please tone your comments down a bit. Rants like yours are wont to be ignored by the closer and are therefore not very effective. Instead, why not calmly tell us exactly how this article meets any notability guideline and we would indeed be done here. If you can't, stop throwing around aspersions on people's motives. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Note Sorting into Washington because of editor's background. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like a pretty standard failure to meet GNG or NJOURNALS due to lack of selective indexing and lack of secondary sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment it's odd that members of an open source community are being so hostile toward an article on an open content journal that obviously has some useful content in it, contributed by multiple members, that certainly ought to be part of the article on a subject that certainly will, and probably does, meet WP:N, that they're willing to quote me out of context° (what a GREAT example of willful blindness!), ignore norms (policies & guidelines) regarding notification, etc. in order to steamroll a deletion. Odd indeed. I have no idea what the motives are. But it's sad. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you are asking the nom to prove a negative (namely that there are no sources). As one arguing to "keep" this article you have the burden of proof by showing us sources that prove notability. As all you can do is throw accusations around (Nstru has been notified, the ping is directly above your comment), but fail to come with any policy-absed arguments (just some wikilawyering about how "the rules" were not followed), I conclude that such proof has not been found even by yourself. --Randykitty (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW I see the message that you posted on Nstru's talk page. While a neutral message is perfectly fine, this one comes close to canvassing. --Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Either my message was perfectly fine, or it was close to canvassing. Which is it? Stop with the intimidation. You demand I practice doublethink, put words in my mouth, and expect there will be no consequences. Not the way it works. Hopefually. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Past performance is not a GUARANTEE of future performance, but it's a damn good guide. I dug for a few minutes, and here's one strong indicator of current notability: Of "what the editors at HealthDay consider to be the most important developments in Pharmacy for June 2018" were four articles from JNO. This from a total of 58 articles, 37 of which were behind paywalls. [3] That's 19 percent of the open access articles.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Please simmer down a little. Your tone seem to borderline being belligerent. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I seem to have gotten confused: I thought I read RK saying both that my message was perfectly fine, and that it was close to canvassing. It doesn't say that, reading it now. I blame the excessive personal judgements and demands, in part.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Blatantly fails notability. --Tarage (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete utter fail of WP:N/WP:NJOURNALS. This is way, waaayyyy WP:TOOSOON. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)