Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Huntington's Disease

Journal of Huntington's Disease

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

Non-notable new journal. Indexed in PubMed, but not in MEDLINE (OA-or hybrid OA- journals get into PubMed through PubMed Central, which is not very selective in its inclusion criteria). Not indexed in any selective database. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NJournals's objection to Pubmed as evidence for notability is that "it includes medical news sources of various degrees of quality, including such items in peer-reviewed journals it does cover". However, since JHD's content is peer-reviewed, this objection does not apply here. Therefore I propose keeping the article on the basis of (1) Coverage in pubmed and (2) fully peer-reviewed content. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 16:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - As further evidence of the journal's notability, I submit these two citations of JHD as a reputable source from Reuters and Yahoo Finance. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 16:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those links are press releases. They add nothing to the journal's notability or reputation. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This interpretation is wrong. The remark indicates that PubMed is not enough to establish notability because PubMed (in contrast to MEDLINE) is not selective enough, because, for example, it includes non-peer-reviewed publications. Nowadays, PubMed also includes anything that goes into PubMed Central, which is even less selective. If PubMed coverage and being peer-reviewed would be enough for notability, then most new OA (or, as in this case, hybrid OA) journals would be notable almost automatically within a few months of publishing their first articles. As for the sources mentioned above, both are the same press release, not something written by those sources and never accepted on WP to establish notability for any subject. --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, not notable, or at least not yet. The promoters of this journal really need to slow down. An article was created, and deleted, in 2011, before it had even started publication. The journal is still less than a year old. After some time has passed it may develop enough notability for inclusion, but it's not there yet. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Huntington's disease. Neutrality^talk 11:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's feasible. Even though the journal is about the disease, that doesn't mean there's a sensible way of merging it into the article on the disease. --Randykitty (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]