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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice[edit]

Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article dePRODed by creator with reason "Give it time, thanks". PROD reason stated was "Relatively new journal, apparently not indexed anywhere. Apart from a very minor controversy (see references 1 and 2), no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." This concern still stands, hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If there is no third party coverage of this journal then we cannot have an article. I notice that the article was created during a dispute at a noticeboard over whether the journal was peer-reviewed.[1] TFD (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete And it really ought to be noted that giving 18 minutes from the prod being remove and AFD`ing the article is poor form. It certainly meets notability guidelines, The Times Macleans Magazine Canadian Medical Association CTV News Canada.com The Scotsman There are no shortage of sources to create this article on what is a peer reviewed journal. Tentontunic (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If you have sources showing notability, then I rather consider it bad form to create a barely sourced stub and then remove a PROD with no better reason than "give it time" (a PROD gives you time, 7 days, no less). As for the sources you give above: "The Scotsman" - just a comment posted by a reader; Canada.com - just a letter to the editor; CTV - just an in-passing mention; CMAJ - just one reference to this journal; "The Times" - only an in-passing mention; "Macleans Nagazine" mentions a study from this journal and is the most substantial of the references you give. None of them, however, is about the journal, most are trivial. There is a shortage of sources showing notability. That you need to trawl the web for reader-posted comments and letters to the editor just illustrates the lack of anything substantial here. And whether or not the journal is peer-reviewed or not has nothing to do with its notability (there are plenty of notable non-reviewed magazines or non-notable reviewed journals). --Crusio (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the article of its parent organization, Drug Free America Foundation. [2] Steinberger (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. I've changed my mind. See below. I didn't intend to, but I've spent over three utterly fascinating hours researching this. I've posted some of my results and conclusions at the article's talk page. (permalink). A high-altitude summary, you ask? Sure: Unless someone wants to rewrite it to document a charmingly effective example of a governmental propaganda project, our article should be deleted. It's certainly not a "journal" in any sense we're used to using the word. With all respect to this article's creator, I could wish he had taken the trouble to discover that on his own.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I ought to have looked a little deeper. I shall change my vote to delete. Tentontunic (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The candor and humility of your response increases you in my view extremely. So many people feel it somehow diminishes them to make an honest error or to acknowledge it when they do, a very foolish attitude, in my opinion. But I honor you sir, for your integrity in making this reply. Very best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite with the citations found by Ohiostandard. As there are RSs discussing specifically this journal, it's notable. The conclusion that it is not what it appeared to be does not mean that an article should not be written about what it is actually is. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought seriously along these lines, too, DGG, and considered changing my !vote to "keep" for exactly the reason you articulate. The main reason I didn't was that I was concerned that leaving the article "up" until someone gets around to really writing it properly was that doing so would give it an appearance of legitimacy in the meantime. Thoughts?  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Somehow I didn't see (or failed to realize the import of it) the sources that Ohiostandard posted on the article talk page. DGG is right. There are sources discussing this "journal". And even though they establish the fact that this obviously is not a reliable source, I think that establishes notability and provides enough material to write an informative article about this publication. As there are "delete" votes I cannot withdraw the nom, but I am now !voting keep. I don't like POV sites masquerading as peer-reviewed academic journals, but that is irrelevant to questions of notability. --Crusio (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love it when AfD's actually make constructive, collaborative progress like this: Where else on Wikipedia does that happen? ;-) Seriously, I couldn't agree more with Crusio on one point, at least: I also strongly dislike "POV sites masquerading as peer-reviewed academic journals", and agree that we'd be doing a service to the encyclopedia and to the world if we were to use WP:RS to document this one as such.

So what we seem to be saying here, if I understand correctly, is that we want to base a "keep" on finding and documenting reliable sources that expose this ostensible "journal" as bogus? I'd be in favor of that, and would be willing to also change my !vote if ( and this is a big "if" ) everyone here !voting to keep will agree to collaborate to do so, rather than just letting the article languish as bait for its supporters to try add content to our article to give it a false air of legitimacy.

In other words, if all y'all will help keep Wikipedia from allowing the article to become advertising for a fake journal, by its mere presence here, and will agree to help source and develop the article, then I'd say we can keep it, and I imagine Tentontunic and TFD might be willing to change their !votes to "keep" as well, under such circumstances. Will everyone here put in a little time to help achieve these goals, so we don't just keep an article that will be an attractive nuisance, i.e. an article by which the ostensible "journal's" publishers or their socks can use Wikipedia to further hoodwink the public?

I'll try to add some more about sources and related matters that touch on whether to "keep" or "delete" this article later today, on its talk page, and would ask my fellow editors to check in there before we decide how to dispose of this question. I'm not sure, for example, whether there's enough substance in WP:RS about this particular "journal" to support a standalone article, for example, although a high Canadian official citing it probably lends weight to the argument that it does. Maybe we need an article like Bogus medical journals or Astroturfing in medical policy or somesuch, that this example could live in as a section? More on the article's talk page later today, though, if I can find the time.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closing admin or editor. I've changed my !vote to "keep", as have other editors, and I'll be contacting the two remaining "delete" !voters to ask that they review the newly added sources, as well. We seem to be making good progress here, so I'd respectfully suggest that this should be relisted when it comes up to its fast-approaching seven-day decision point. My guess is, that with the progress we appear to be making, we might be able to come to a unanimous conclusion, or nearly so, although I'm not sure we have the reliable sources to support that at this point. In any case, I'd suggest that a "relist" would be more productive at this point than a "close" one way or the other or a "close with no consensus". If we make the progress I suspect we will, then one of us, whether admin or no, can close it after a relist, so no additional work will be required by AfD admin "close patrollers" or whatever the right description for that commendable role might be. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any extensive literature on this journal? I do not mind delaying the AfD so that we can look at anything that might justify an article. TFD (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TFD. I need to go back and look at my notes, but that might be a problem, which is the reason I haven't (yet?) changed my !vote to "keep". I don't have time just this moment to comment (or research) further, but of the posts I made to the talk page, only the first two are unarguably WP:RS. The third probably is, in that it's made by a person who is a recognized expert in the field, Evan Wood, ( M.D.? Ph.D.? Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, anyway ) but it's nevertheless still a comment page.

Pontificalibus ( see below ) has added some cites to the article just recently, too, though, and Crusio has done some work on it too ( good on them! ) but I haven't had time to look at that carefully yet, re notability, although I'm now leaning toward "keep". I should also just add quickly that although I dug up the sources I posted to the article's talk page independently, it's actually user Steinberger who deserves most of that credit. As I've just seen from the NPOV/N thread on this that was linked to, above, he actually found and cited the first two of the three sources I posted to the article's talk page before I was even aware of this issue. So good on him, too. In haste,  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've had time to review the current state of the article, now. See my revised !vote, below.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article currently demonstrates significant coverage in reliable sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This reverses my earlier !vote above, which I've stuck out. The current state of the article has sufficient sources to establish notability. I'd like to reiterate my earlier request, though, that editors who want to keep the article should help expand it with additional content and sources. I'd also ask that keep !voters maintain it on their respective watchlists since, like the article for the Insite (revision history) needle-exchange program that the founders of this "journal" oppose, this article may become something of a battleground with groups opposed to harm reduction attempting to whitewash it into an appearance of legitimacy. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insite is, btw, the first legal supervised injection site in North America. I'd need to read further to confirm, but it's my current understanding that this "journal" was created primarily to oppose the Insite project. It does appear to have branched out some since then, though, to promote its overall doctrine that "the war on drugs" can be won by prosecuting anyone involved in drug use.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have struck my merge vote, and !vote Keep. Although, I am, too, afraid that it will turn into a battleground. Steinberger (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope you're wrong, but admit that that is only a slim hope... But we're a bunch of experienced, reasonable editors here, so if we all keep this watchlisted, we should be able to keep things in hand. --Crusio (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2011 (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.