Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oncology Reports


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oncology Reports

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD declined on the grounds that it's indexed. That does not address the issue of notability. This is a journal published by its editor in chief, not a major or even independent publishing house, and the article has never had a single independent source to establish notability. Being indexed does not confer notability (still less reliability), some outright junk gets indexed. Notability is about reliable independent coverage of the article subject itself, Wikipedia is not a directory (although that's debatable in some areas by now). Guy (Help!) 12:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, is indexed by major and selective databases (Medline, Scopus, CAS, CSA, and many others), has impact factor, and thus meets WP:NJOURNALS with flying colors. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't get what "being published by it's EiC / not major/independant house" has to do with anything (and it's not, it's published by Spandidos Publications, it just happened to be owned by the EiC, which is somewhat unusual, but has no relevance to its notability). It might affect it's reliability (although in this case, all the SP journals happen to be well regarded, and all have impact factors). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Sizeable impact factor, indexed in selective, major databases (not just all-inclusive databases like DOAJ or Google Scholar that, indeed, might include some "junk"). As Headbomb (welcome back!) says: meets WP:NJournals with flying colors. And by the way, there is an independent source (to nothing less than the Journal Citation Reports). --Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep for the obvious reasons - indexed in major league, yet selective databases. Several of these databases are Thomson Reuter's just for starters. That alone would make it a keeper, but wait there's more. It has an impact factor, and is indexed in other major databases, as has been stated above. By the way, the selective databases are considered to be independent reliable sources for academic journals.  Steve Quinn (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There are some areas where the basic guideline is difficult to apply without some interpretation, and the general area of journals magazines and newspapers both academic and otherwise is among them. Fortunately for academic journals we have a good proxy: the coverage by major secondary services is  the functional equivalent of the RS for N requirement.  DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 28 July 2013 (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.