Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oncoscience


 * 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 and leave a redirect to Oncology. Michig (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Oncoscience

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases (PubMed Central accepts all OA medical journals), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article was dePRODded because it is included in PubMed Central and PubMed. PMC is not selective, including all OA journals within its subject range (excluding only the most egregiously bad ones). PubMed automatically includes all PMC journals. The selective parts of PubMed are Index Medicus and MEDLINE. This journal is in neither. Therefore the PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable journal per nominator's analysis. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Plausible search term for oncology, perhaps?  I'll go with redirect there.  I have no objection to deleting the current content first, if that's what editors want to do.— S Marshall  T/C 22:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to oncology BakerStMD T&#124;C 17:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Creating a redirect to oncology after deletion seems like a good idea. --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Another odd deletion that leads me to ask if there is a deletion contest somewhere. The journal cannot time travel. MicroPaLeo (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry, but this is about the weirdest comment I have seen in an AfD. What do you mean with "The journal cannot time travel"? And why exactly do you think that this journal meets our notability criteria? (Apparently you think that, given the "keep" !vote). As my mind-reading abilities have recentlyu been disabled, I'd appreciate any clarification. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your time travel abilities seem as sound as your desire to both own and delete this article, so I leave this one to you. MicroPaLeo (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. PianoDan (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2015 (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.