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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The American Journal of Managed Care[edit]

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

Ignoring the copyright problems, I'm unable to find any indication that the journal meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. I have to disagree with DGG's assertion that being covered by the SCI confers automatic notability. There does not seem to be any significant independent coverage of the journal. Huon (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. that's been our invariable practice for years: being reindexed by aselective index. The SCI is the most selective of all indexing services. And FWIW, the impact factor is 3.0, which makes it a particularly important journal. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The relevant guideline for academic journals, according to WP:WikiProject Academic Journals, is WP:NJOURNALS. That guideline suggests that being reindexed by selective indices or having an impact factor are enough to establish notability (see § Notes and examples points 1 and 2). Academic journals, especially those in niche subject areas, are unlikely to have the depth of coverage necessary to satisfy WP:GNG, so a more specific notability guideline is necessary. So, if this journal is indexed and abstracted in Science Citation Index and has an impact factor of 3.0 according to Journal Citation Reports, then that's enough for an article. It should probably be reorganized according to the guidelines at WP:JWG, though. The existing mentions of indexing/abstracting were removed as copyvio. clpo13_(talk) 23:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to my previous comment, WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, not a guideline. Take that as you will. clpo13_(talk) 23:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see that WikiProjects and essays override widely-respected guidelines. "Academic journals, especially those in niche subject areas, are unlikely to have the depth of coverage" - that's precisely why we should not have articles on most of them: There's nothing to say except to give them a space for self-representation. Even that essay says: "The merits of an article on the journal will depend largely on the extent to which the material is verifiable through third-party sources." That would be grounds for WP:TNT, I'd say. Huon (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NJOURNALS, like other notability essays on subjects lacking specific guidelines, has often been used in academic journal AfDs. That said, criterion 3 of that essay (citations by reliable sources) is often a better indicator of notability, similar to criterion 1 of WP:PROF, though being indexed and having an impact factor are good indications the journal is cited elsewhere. clpo13_(talk) 23:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think citations are a much poorer indication. Almost all journals except a few very famous ones never are the subject of true eferences providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources. They do receive references from non selective and non authoritve guides to the literature of various sorts., and there have been a few publications attempting to evaluate all journals in a field--as a librarian, I find them useless. Choice used to review journals, but stopped at least 20 years ago, because there was no utility in them. What does get coverage are problems and scandals, and debates about whether is so bad it should be regarded a a scam. To make an analog with WP:PROF, just as the notability of a researchers depends on the importance of their work, as measured by the number of citations to it work, so does the notability of a journal depend upon the number of citation to the articles in it, which is measured (very crudely) by the impact factor adjusted for field. SCI is a good indicator even if the IF is relatively low, because it does not include titles unless they get some significant use and are genuine journals.I should mention that library holdings have become worthless for journals included in major journal databases like infotrac, because many libraries routinely (& in my opinion foolishly) include every journal received in a bulk subscription package in their catalog, whether or not it has the least relationship to their program or the likelihood of ever being used. ( DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a more thorough search indicates that there may be some problems with the journal. The description , though technically accurate, does not give a proper indication that the journal is a controlled circulation journal, not available by subscription, but distributed free to people in the profession. It does contain peer-reviewed research articles, but that is a only about half of the journal--news items and editorial reviews are the other contents, and very possibly the most-read contents. (and available free on the web). Such journals can be very useful, and I've found a few similar journals in my own field very valuable (and a few totally useless, of course) . I'm rewriting the article. It is , however , in Science Citation Index Expanded, and in Social Science Citation Index. (It is btw rather difficult to validly measure the IF of a journal like this, because really only the research articles should be counted- ), DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and clpo13. Notable on having IF alone. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG on index factor. shoy (reactions) 20:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep aside from the excellent argument for keeping above, I personally believe that every journal should meet our standard for inclusion. Journals are sources, we cite articles to sources, readers should be able to look up said sources to evaluate them for professionalism or lack thereof or possible commercial bias. So, call this an IAR argument for keeping this and all other similar pieces. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This just points to one obvious issue with that "lovable" term notability! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 01:04, 19 December 2015 (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.