Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current Opinion in Immunology


 * 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 and cleanup. Krakatoa Katie  09:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Current Opinion in Immunology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominated for speedy as blatant advertising, tag removed by a user who disagreed. While it might not be blatant advertising, seems clearly spam.  Citi Cat   ♫ 00:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the publication returns 3,330 Google Scholar hits, which indicates it may be widely cited and considered notable within its field. I don't have the expert knowledge in this field to attempt a cleanup/rewrite.--Muchness 01:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are many many more hits for its abbreviated name: about 62,000. —David Eppstein 02:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup: A quick search on Google comes up with thousands of links including this and this. This is a notable, long-running science journal with many volumes. All that is needed, in my opinion, is a good editing to clean up and wikify. -- VegitaU 01:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As far as I'm concerned, any academic journal by a publisher as prominent as Elsevier is inherently notable. They're in most university libraries, after all. The fact that it's a survey journal instead of an original research journal doesn't really change my position on this. In the meantime, has merged this with some ten other similar and similarly-named Elsevier journals; the merge looks reasonable to me and I think they should all stay for the same reason. —David Eppstein 02:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that an AfD was in progress on one of these titles. In the spirit of KP Botany's sarcastic comment "let's discuss on AfD all day instead of editing" (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the drift), I carried on editing and merging. I think the main article Current Opinion is OK for the moment, and if any of the journal sections get expanded, they can move to their own articles. The 10 redirects are at Category:Current Opinion journals, a subcategory of Category:Elsevier scientific journals, a subcategory of Category:Scientific journals by publisher, a subcategory of Category:Scientific journals. I urge people to help expand this category structure and write and merge stubs. After finishing AfD discussions, of course! :-) Carcharoth 02:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I did not propose this for deletion on notability grounds, but because what was written there was only advertising.  Citi Cat   ♫ 04:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and close The article has been redirected to a more appropriate page for all the Current Opinion journals. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Geo Swan 12:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't share nominator's concern that this article was, originally, advertizing.
 * I am concerned over the redirection during the middle of the afd discussion.
 * I don't agree with the redirection to section, in general. One of the most powerful features that differentiates the wikipedia from the plain old world-wide web is that it provides bidirectional linking.  Hyperlinks on the world-wide web are unidirectional.  There is no real equivalent to the wikipedia's very powerful "what links here".  Unfortunately, as currently implemented, the wikipedia doesn't really support linking at any finer scale than at the article to article level.  Redirection to section is basically broken, and IMO, should be deprecated.
 * In this particular instance I think the redirection muddied what we are debating here. Sorry User:Carcharoth, I am sure your considerable efforts were well-meant, but I think it would have been better for you to have waited until after the discussion here was concluded. Geo Swan 12:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have reverted the redirect as the article is still at AfD and by redirecting you were removing the AfD notice. Computerjoe 's talk 14:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay, let's go back to the beginning. There's not an argument at this point concerning notability - if someone were to write a good stub, or if the decision is to redirect, that would supercede my nomination. The article as it stands now is COI (the author is named COIM and has no other edits) and is definitely ad-like in tone. It should either be rewritten from scratch or deleted and left as a redlink for later rewriting.  Citi Cat   ♫ 14:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless the article were greatly expanded, I would merge and redirect anyway, after the AfD, as a normal editorial decision. Carcharoth 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, fine, except that I wouldn't merge anything that's there (see above). If that were the decision I would redirect and if necessary add newly written information to the target article.  Citi Cat   ♫ 17:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's not that much more onerous to have the redirect undone while the AfD proceeds. Though I do think that when AfD "process for the sake of process" gets in the way of editing, it shows that something is wrong with the AfD nomination. In this case, all 10 redirects should have been nominated, but as the other nine are redirects it would be disruptive to undo the redirects merely to nominate at AfD. What could be done is to leave all 10 redirects in place, and put the AfD notice on the Current Opinion article, and invite discussion on whether the redirects should be deleted and then recreated. But this could all be discussed and resolved at Talk:Current Opinion. AfD (or the nominator) should not be afraid to swiftly close discussions that are more appropriate at other venues. My opinion is that the AfD should be closed to allow discussion to continue at Talk:Current Opinion, as it is obvious permanent deletion is not appropriate. Carcharoth 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment 1 - in response to Geo Swan: "I am concerned over the redirection during the middle of the afd discussion." - redirection can be done and undone like any other edit. I was in the process of merging a group of ten articles, and noticed one that had been nominated at AfD. Performing all the merges made more sense than leaving one not done. What I should have done, is move the AfD notice to the main article to allow the AfD discussion and notice to "follow the redirect". I haven't seen anyone do this sort of thing before, but that is more likely to be because no-one has thought of doing things this way before. Carcharoth 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 - in response to Geo Swan: "Unfortunately, as currently implemented, the wikipedia doesn't really support linking at any finer scale than at the article to article level. Redirection to section is basically broken, and IMO, should be deprecated." - I respectfully disagree with this. Why do you think redirection to section is broken? The most common complaints are, or were, the following: (1) "Redirects to sections don't work!" - well, they do now, as the developers made anchor links (#links) work several months ago. (2) "What happens if the name of a section changes?" The section header should have a permamnent "span id" tag for the anchor links to follow. That way, the section name can be changed and it won't affect the anchored redirects. (3) "But we can't categorise the sections!" Sure you can. See Categorizing redirects, and categorize the redirect to section to make a section appear in a category. Carcharoth 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - oh, and also have a look at Category:Current Opinion journals and compare with Category:Trends journals, noting that the redirects are also in 'topic' categories (eg. Trends in Molecular Medicine appears in Category:Medical journals). It may well be that these redirects should be their own articles. But the decision AfD makes is whether the journals are notable or not. The decision on whether to have the information in a list or in separate articles, is an editorial decision, not a decision for AfD. Carcharoth 15:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and start over: You bet your butt it's blatant advertising.  The journal is not "new" (started in 1988 makes it 19 years old, which makes it older than most Wikipedians), and it's not shady.  Elsevier is august, distinguished, etc., and the journal is fine.  We should have an article on the journal, and we shouldn't preserve this nearly copyvio text that is a flat out blurb from the advertising.  Yes, I am saying that this should be deleted, and then someone with some experience and ideas about articles should just flat out write an article.  We should not be rewarding people for slapping ad copy onto Wikipedia.  Geogre 20:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keepand improve, which is easy enough to do. I've done it for other journals. CI is no cause for delete. it does make for poor quality articles--in this case, not as much for what they inserted, which is meaningless PR garbage, as that they did not bother to include the stuff that makes the journal important, like its phenomenally high impact fact, its very widespread library holdings, its universal use in the subject. If we deleted for COI, we'd lose half of WP, including much of he good stuff--its a reason to watch carefully and edit strictly, not to delete. These should have been edited long ago.
 * As for section vs. independent articles, it's a matter of convenience. There are a few thousand important peer-reviewed journals to add, and it is often simpler to add them in group articles, for expansion later. In this case, I have nothing against a group article. But we can decide that separately.
 * By the way, i totally disagree with the statement that everything this company publishes is notable or worthwhile. I'll be glad to provide examples of the many ones they do that are negligible--many of them aren't even in Web of Science/Journal Citation Reports, which i regard as a rough screen. Most large publishers publish some junk--I completely disagree with importance by attribution without considering the individual items. For these particular guy, I'd guess about 9/10 are OK, but i see no reason to give them a free ride on the remaining ones.
 * Let me declare some COI of my own. On the one hand I have published and posted some material very critical of the company's editorial and business practices for various products. On the other hand, we remain on good business arms-length terms, and they extend to me the same access they do to other reviewers. DGG (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect, just one of many review journals from this publisher - they're not even peer reviewed journals nor do they accept independent submissions. --Peta 12:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment few review journals are peer reviewed in the ordinary sense that applies to primary research journals, nor need they be, because the accuracy of the science is not at stake. Rather, they are edited by the editor and his editorial board, who often do make use of outside reviewers as advisors. And almost none accept external submissions, but only by invitation or prior inquiry--the amount of work is so great that nobody would really want to write one on speculation--especially as it is not obligatory, as writing up the result of a research project is. Rather, it is considered an honor, and represents acknowledgment that one is a sufficient authority to be trusted to summarize and evaluate the work in a field. (and that's why we favor such review articles as sources for WP articles). DGG (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.