Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology

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 no consensus, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology[edit]

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

No third-party sources to confirm notability of a new journal published by a nonnotable e-publisher. - Altenmann >t 23:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original prodder. No sign of any Wikipedia:Notability, academic impact or any encyclopedic interest. Created by a SPA. Abductive (reasoning) 00:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PubMed, the definitive journal search engine for medical articles, run by the NIH [1], takes this new journal seriously enough to catalog its articles using the abbreviation Int J Clin Exp Pathol. To me that indicates that it has been accepted as a legitimate medical journal. --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to improve the encyclopedia?" Wikipedia doesn't go by legitimacy, it goes by WP:Notability. Abductive (reasoning) 04:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It's a very new journal, and I think the most reasonable conclusion is to say not yet notable, and perhaps merge to the publisher, as there is not yet any record for how much its articles get citied--which is the key way a journal gets to be notable. I 'm quite inclusive on journals, but I think Pub Med is a little more inclusive than we should be. I'd wait until it's in at least Scopus or WoS, which do reflect the expected citations. . DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasons: 1. The journal's editorial board shows that this journal was originally founded with 32 great pathologists (including 20 Chairmen from the Department of Pathology of major universities across the world) (please refer to journal's editorial board webpage and go to "Founding Editorial Board" from there for reference) in an effort to promote Open Access to Science. 2. Editor-in-Chief is an internationally highly recognized pathologist with more than 500 published papers in PubMed and one of the Highly-Cited investigator in SCI. Although this journal was officially launched in the beginning of 2008, it is already officially indexed in PubMed (2008), Scopus (2009) and fully archived in PubMed Central. Based on the available data from Google Scholar, papers published in journal have already been widely cited (please search google scholar fro reference). OpenAccessforScience (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I agree with DGG. As it seems that the journal additionally is now also included in Scopus, I think it is notable enough. --Crusio (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Weak delete, as Scopus recently seems to have become less selective. That university libraries have it in their "digital libraries" doesn't say much, since that doesn't cost them anything... --Crusio (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except it has no sources, and nothing encyclopedic can be said about it. Abductive (reasoning) 13:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 02:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scopus inclusion satisfies notability per Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals).Novangelis (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) did not achieve consensus. It is a failed guideline. Abductive (reasoning) 07:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for many topics, such as schools & shopping centers, the formal guidelines did not achieve consensus, but in practice they are followed at AfD, in both delete and keep directions. That's because of a feature (or perhaps a defect) of our decision making process--that a clear supermajority is required for a guideline, and consequently a relatively few objectors can prevent one, but since AfDs have to be decided, plain consensus is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate This seems an excellent case for it. The journal quite probably will be notable, but isn't yet IMHO. NBeale (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A number of universities have decided to keep a copy of this publication in their digital libraries. Mkdw ^talk 18:35, 27 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.