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The result was Withdrawn. Although I am not at all convinced that "systematic bias" means that we should accept some in-passing mentions as indicating notability, I am obviously in the minority here. No use drawing this out any longer, so I withdraw the nom. Randykitty (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medical journal of Zambia (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)

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources covering the journal in depth. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The journal has been covered by UNESCO here http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/portals-and-platforms/goap/access-by-region/africa/zambia/ and also has an ISSN. WP:NJournals specifically says "In the sense that a journal has been published, it may have been noted by various entities like the ISSN International Centre and WorldCat, who assign and compile information about serial publications. For the purposes of this guideline, notable means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG." Therefore, I believe this journal meets WP:GNG because it has received significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject, that is in this case, both UNESCO (a UN agency) and the ISSN International Centre. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm afraid that you misinterpret NJournals. Having an ISSN is absolutely irrelevant for notability. It is not "significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG." --Randykitty (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• How are UNESCO's two short lines significant coverage? You might want to restudy the definition of WP:SIGCOV. --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The UNESCO page specifically lists this under "Major Projects/Initiatives". Thus it "addresses the topic directly and in detail" and " no original research is needed to extract the content". Of course its not the article's main subject, and other journals are also mentioned. I would not be opposed to a more general page covering Open Source Publishing in Zambia as opposed to specific pages on journals, if editors feel that is more appropriate. Nonetheless, I think being cited as a major project by a UN agency is plainly more than a passing mention. With regards to NJournals I have quoted the part of the policy as written from which my interpretation arises. If the community comes to a consensus that disagrees with this, then that's fair, but then the policy ought to be clarified. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, those are still two lines about the subject. Being mentioned by UNESCO may be independent coverage in a reliable source, but but there is not much, i.e. significant, coverage. In what world are two lines of information the same as a detailed discussion of the topic? --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a peer-reviewed journal. It may be small and appear non-notable, but its status implies otherwise. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 04:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many peer-reviewed journals that have been deleted because of a lack of notability. Being peer-reviewed is important when deciding whether something is a reliable source, but we wouldn't have WP:NJournals if being peer-reviewed would be enough to be notable. --Randykitty (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the well-argued comments above and per WP:GEOBIAS. AusLondonder (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So "systemic bias" means putting aside all notions of notability? --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notability question has been addressed above. AusLondonder (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed it has: an in-passing mention does not establish notability, GEOBIAS or not. --Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with the comments above. Qaei ☎ 13:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Which ones? Those that say that an in-passing mention is not enough to establish notability??? --Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• AusLondonder and Andrew Z. Colvin Qaei ☎ 14:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And neither of those have given policy-based arguments. --Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I reiterate that a major project is not merely a passing mention. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The project may be major, but their mention of this journal is absolutely in-passing only. --Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This journal appears to have an impact within its geographical region, which is important because this region is not as developed as "Northern hemisphere" nations. It also seems to suffer from systematic bias being a sub-Saharan medical journal with systemic impediments in place that decrease visibility it could otherwise have. This becomes obvious when reading the UNESCO page [1] and Thomson Reuters page [2].

I am convinced the journal is itself is of sufficiently high quality and publishes based on high standards. I think that this journal is selectively listed in the UNESCO Major Projects (and) Initiatives, being the only journal listed here. If this was a low quality happenstance project it would willy nilly list any journals or any number of journals. This is a serious effort by numbers of people in that region - just read the page [3].

Another plus is its partnership with Thompson Reuters, which publishes top tier material and is a highly reputable organization. Thomson Reuters has selected this as one of its few ScholarOne Manuscripts sites, while being designated as a member of the African Journal Partnership Project [4], and this seems to be an important distinction. This is one of those notable journals not covered by our notability criteria. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note, when we look for a journal on the Thomson Reuters Master List, all that shows up is the name of the journal, its issn, publisher, and the databases it is listed, but only if you click on the "coverage" link [5]. So, if someone wants to be picky, this is also passing mention - there is no description of any listed journals here. At least in the UNESCO page there is a short description of the journal's coverage, editor in chief, and the institution with which the editor in chief is affiliated. --Steve Quinn (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2017 (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.