- 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. Star Mississippi 18:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- James I. Ausman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be the host of a local television show and the publisher of his own med journal. Sources seem to be mostly to him or to a provided bio or local coverage. valereee (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment might be notable as a neurosurgeon, but the "China virus" book doesn't fill me with a sense of notability. Rest of the article appears to be a resume. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the article is a mess and includes lots of POV-pushing that is out-of-place in a bio. I tried cleaning up some of it, but lots remain — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As the editor in chief of academic journals, he has a clear pass at WP:NACADEMIC criterion #8. Please note this isn't one of these guides that says "are presumed to be notable" it says clearly "are notable". CT55555 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @CT55555, it's his own journal. He edits and publishes it. It's neither major nor well-established, which is what #8 requires. valereee (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In some way, every journal is/was edited by its owners. Now if it's not major or well established, you'll be correct to challenge this. Do we know? I'm running on WP:AGF with the sources being offline. CT55555 (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's major and/or well-established, that will be easily supported. valereee (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, both of them are on Wikipedia...see World Neurosurgery and Surgical Neurology International. CT55555 (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That means nothing. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. valereee (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Surgical Neurology (now called World Neurosurgery) should be a major journal. Has an impact factor of 1.89 which is ok, not great, but not insignificant. I don't know what the guidelines consider "major", though. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rsjaffe, can you clarify what you mean by 'should be'? valereee (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- See my response below. I do think this is subjective: there is no definition for "major". — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- To be on Wikipedia, it has to pass Wikipedia's notability criteria. This isn't a discussion about verifiability, it's a discussion about notability and therefore both journals passing wikipedias notability criteria is a reasonable shorthand for saying they are major or well established journals. If you have a better way to judge what is major or well established, you could say and we could measure against it.
- If anyone wants to say that neither of these journals are credible for the purposes of WP:NACADEMIC please say so and say why. CT55555 (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @CT55555, ideally, to stay on WP, you need to do that. Many many many sources don't because no one has challenged them. valereee (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That is true and fair. But they seem like reasonable articles. He'd only need to be editor in chief of one to meet the criteria. To discredit him on this basis, you'd need to argue both articles deserve to be deleted and that's a bit of a stretch. CT55555 (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability and major journal are two different things. To pass the C8 criterion, it needs to be a major journal. That relates to its impact in the field and its respect. For notability see the essay WP:NJOURNAL. Note also that non-notable journals may have articles, as we have lots of articles in wikipedia that don't technically qualify for wikipedia. I looked at impact factor and longevity to see whether these are major. Surgical Neurology (now World Neurosurgery) seems to me to pass these criteria. I'm much more on the fence with Surgical Neurology International. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for this comment. He would only need to be the editor in chief of one major journal to meet the criteria, so does this mean you agree he's notable as a result of that job? CT55555 (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Shortly after the relist, the only delete vote above (notwithstanding a skeptical comment) updated to keep. This is a combination FYI for anyone reading/closing, but also a ping to User:Liz in case that changes the need for more time. CT55555 (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think more time is fine. Others may disagree as to whether that journal is “major”. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer another admin to close this discussion. One might come along and close it now. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep read the discussions above. Based on meeting criterion #8 of WP:NACADEMIC criterion, it should be acceptable. Samanthany (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2022 (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.