Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Journal of Medical Update

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Journal of Medical Update

I can't believe that any notable academic journal would be hosted at geocities.com or have such an ungrammatical name. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nominator. Looks dubious, and doesn't appear to pass the WP:N test. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the best that can be said for it tis that its a major journal for the country, and that, in view of systematic bias, it should remain included. (And one might make a grammatical allowance for awkward titles of non-English origin, that's not a safe way to judge. But they have published very little, and it's not of much international significance. DGG (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and verifiability guidelines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no showing that this meets the website notability guidelines. But comment: prejudice against the Geocities host shouldn't really play a part in this: nothing about being hosted on Geocities precludes a site from meeting those guidelines. For a likely low-traffic site like this, it may be a highly cost effective choice. The goal seems praiseworthy; the individual articles plausible insofar as I can understand them. Nor should the fact that it's unlikely that the host is a native English speaker be held against it. But the real problem is that as far as I can tell this is inded a low-traffic site, without independent commentary specifically about the site itself. Note also that citations to articles hosted here would not make a case under the guideline as written. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2008 (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.