Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annals of Respiratory Medicine

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. Cirt (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annals of Respiratory Medicine[edit]

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

Brand-new online journal appears to have absolutely no noteability at present. Maybe at some point in the future.

* Delete ... no sign that this is peer reviewed or otherwise notable. Springnuts (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Spoke too soon ... reserving judgment. Springnuts (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Annals of Respiratory Medicine, which has 5 Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 08:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also Delete Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, which has 7 Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 09:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. As far as I can see, neither has published a single article yet. Do not meet WP:Notability (academic journals). As an aside, I must see that I find the current AfD a bit unclear, it took me a moment to understand why Abductive had voted twice above... --Crusio (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you can't get it through AfC create an account and put it up yourself with the exact same text. Interesting strategy, but it's here now. Now we have a journal Google barely recognizes except for this article, and it's almost as if they were named to cause confusion; the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology" and the "Journal of Clinical Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Medicine" being different publications. Delete them both as nascent, non-notable journals. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Brand new journals with nothing yet published. Cannot possibly be notable at this point. (A new or even proposed journal from a really major publisher like NPG or the ACS can be notable immediately, just as a book from a really major author, but this is nowhere in that class.) With currently available software, it is trivially easy to start a free online journal. I don'r think anyone at this point even the publisher could claim this is notable, though of course it might become so. (but, FWIW, titles will necessarily be similar for different journals--there are only so many ways to word something). I am really tempted to call an article like this a G11 promotional speedy. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy/snow). Per all the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless the journal in question gets major press coverage for some reason, it needs to have published something to be considered notable. This is simply too early. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:20, 11 December 2009 (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.