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. – Joe (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current Opinion (Current Drugs) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unsourced article "about" a series of apparently non-notable journals, published by an apparently non-notable publisher. The word "about" is in scare-quotes because actually there is no content in the article, it is just a directory listing of ISSNs. I was unable to find any sources that mention this series (although searching for sources is difficult because there are two other journal series (published by different publishers) with essentially the same name). JBL (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously a notable series of journals from a notable publisher (Current Drugs Ltd., or its former name Current Patents Ltd), all of them (or nearly all) were indexed in the highly selective Index Medicus and had impact factors (indexing in Journal Citation Reports), and several other databases (including Scopus)

• Current Opinion in Drug Discovery & Development [1]
• Current Opinion in Investigational Drugs (old) [2] +continuation
• Current Opinion in Investigational Drugs (new) [3]
  • Current Opinion in Anti-infective Investigational Drugs [4]
  • Current Opinion in Anti-inflammatory & Immunomodulatry Investigation Drugs [5]
  • Current Opinion in Cardiovascular, Pulmonary and Renal Investigational Drugs [6]
  • Current Opinion in Central & Peripheral Nervous System Investigational Drugs [7]
  • Current Opinion in Oncologic, Endocrine & Metabolic Investigational Drugs [8]
• Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics [9]

and pass WP:NJOURNALS. The Practice of Medicinal Chemistry considers Current Opinion in Drug Discovery & Development important, for instance, and they have pretty respectable H-indices for short-lived journals (e.g. [10]).

Would it be better to have individual entries? Maybe. But Wikipedia is better off with this set index article than without. The alternative is to create an entry on Current Drugs and put this information there. Deletion/Removal of this information is not an improvement to Wikipedia (we cite those journals at least 185 times on Wikipedia, btw).Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While they were being published, these journals were included in highly selective databases such as Index Medicus. Given that they have been discontinued after a relatively short run, I would prefer to merge this to the article about the publisher, with the indexing info added and referenced, but unfortunately such an article doesn't exist. The current article is bare-bones, but can (and should) be expanded, but that is not for AfD to solve. --Randykitty (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above !votes. If we had more information on the publisher, we could make this into an article about them and rename appropriately. XOR'easter (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than happy with this proposal if there were enough sourceable information to support an article on the publisher. But as far as I can tell, there is 0 information available anywhere about either the journals or the publisher. This seems to present a serious problem with WP:V, for example, and I find it odd that none of the the votes so far have attempted to address this total lack of sourcing. --JBL (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not cleanup. And there's plenty of sources on the publisher, these are literally the first two links I gave above.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Deletion is not cleanup" would be relevant if the problem was that sources exist but aren't being used properly. I cannot find any evidence that sources exist. Can you? --JBL (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Literally the first two links I posted, again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To google? There is no usable information there. --JBL (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2018 (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.