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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine (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)

Apparently fails WP:NJOURNALs. jps (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's included in the curated database Index Medicus. If the experts at the United States National Library of Medicine think it is important enough for that highly-selective database, I'm not going to second-guess them. --Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: it's also in Scopus and the Science Citation Index Expanded. It's 2015 impact factor is 1.329. I have added this information to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Its parent company prominently features a quote by Andrew Weil on its homepage and their editor-in-chief is none other than Andrew Campbell. Oh, this is an excellent journal, fershure. They helpfully sponsor the bestest Vaccine Cause Autism conferences around! I'm so glad that indexing proves that this "journal" which gets a whopping 1.3 citations per article (to other vaccine cause autism articles? Who am I to say! I can't look at the paper citations myself, surely!) It's so nice that we have people preserving the stubby articles on pseudoscience journals for us here at Wikipedia even while nobody else in the world pays attention to them. Truly, you are doing the work of God here. jps (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I go by sources. If this journal is a known fringe journal (i.e., there are reliable sources that say so), please add that to the article. If such sources are not available, then on what do you base your assessment that this is a bad journal? Your own evaluation? --Randykitty (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry that it seems you aren't able to see that when a editor-in-chief of a medical journal has been sued by his state's medical board that might be something of a WP:REDFLAG when it comes to WP:FRINGE. But why worry about stuff like that when we can just thrust our heads into the sand and pretend like a journal that is essentially never cited outside of its own WP:Walled garden is legitimate? Surely, there's nothing wrong with using an essay that claims that merely being indexed is all that is required to prove notability. Yep, you've convinced me. jps (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a lawyer, but when I look at the source that you give for your assertion that the EIC of this journal is a quack, it seems to me that this is a summons for a hearing, not a judgment or conviction. Even a serial killer is presumed innocent until convicted. Although this is not a biographical article, WP:BLP still applies. Perhaps the guy's a quack. But without evidence you cannot say that. I'll leave it up to you to add a reliable source or to remove that remark. --Randykitty (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you just stop reading halfway through or something? "in November 2009, the Board entered a Final Order reprimanding Campbell and suspending his medical license for eight months, after which his practice must be monitored for five years." jps (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment FWIW, it looks like the most cited paper in the journal is this one, which has 998 citations on Google Scholar. Everymorning (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. Fun and games with NCCAM. The center so nice, they can't even decide what it's name is. This joyful paper is cited so much because basically in order to get a center grant, you've got to mention it. Usually you do this by writing the profoundly smart sentence, "Complementary and alternative treatments are increasingly popular in the US [add another cite to the barbie]." Funny how that citation engine doesn't result in much movement on the IF, isn't it? jps (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly passes WP:NJOURNAL. StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with the above assessment from Randykitty. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep*. An encyclopaedia records notable objects existing in the world around - not objects that we want the world to consist of. If an undoubtedly notable journal happens to focus on fringe theories, we should write this in the text, and not censor out the existence of this journal. — kashmiri ^TALK 19:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, again the bizarre use of NJournals here by the WP:Journals crew. This fails GNG. There are serious NPOV issues at this article and more broadly with regard to the project's blindered commitment to relying on indexes alone for notability -- you all seem to feel you have some responsibility as "librarians" in WP. Well your NJOURNALS essay is failing you and most importantly it, and your application of it, are failing the community. I am really, really disappointed that long-term WIkipedians are allowing a fringe-spewing journal to have a WP article that cannot characterize the journal due to lack of sources. This is a replay of the brouhaha at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (2nd nomination) and it is mind-blowing to me that the community is having the exact same discussion here. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There are serious NPOV issues at this article" no there aren't, and even if there were deletion is not cleanup / WP:SOFIXIT. But as you've made clear, you're not interested in that, you're only interested in huffing and puffing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Fails GNG. NJournals is an essay and shouldn't override GNG's policy. Valeince (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment see also: Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine Shaded0 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is a pseudo-journal. It does not pass GNG. QuackGuru (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I don't see why the anti-alternatives crew are claiming that it does not pass GNG. Why are they so threatened by alternatives? Dicklyon (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, see also [1]. At #10, it clearly is an influential journal (which is an entirely different thing that a reliable one). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the Journal of Credulous Bullshit under the editorship of Nostradamus Mesmer Junior were indexed, widely read and widely cited, it would qualify for an article. Cleanup of NPOV language, perceived or otherwise, is a different matter. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes NJOURNALS ,i.e., covered in selective databases and has an impact factor. The appraised medical competence and/or ethics of the editor in chief has been noted, so all bases appear to be covered and sourced. Also, sorry to say, I am not seeing any NPOV issues with this article. It appears neutrally worded to me. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:46, 14 January 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.