Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pharmacology Weekly


 * 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   Redirect the first to List of pharmaceutical sciences journals, delete the second.  MBisanz  talk 02:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacology Weekly

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Is this notable? 320 Ghits, doesn't really explain why it is notable.  TheAE  talk / sign  05:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I am nominating this page likewise:


 * Delete for lack of reliable secondary sources. Alexius08 (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I understand the notability argument and I do give due weight to that.  However, this is an academic journal.  Since Wikipedia is partly a research tool, there are very good reasons why Wikipedia tends to be lenient to academics, scholars, and educational institutions when it comes to notability.  So I'm mildly leaning towards keep. -- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: wholly unsourced and offering no indication that third party sourcing may become available. In response to S Marshall's "this is an academic journal" argument, I will simply quote WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There is no reason to believe that "third-party sources can be found" for either of these journals, so no good reason to retain them. HrafnTalkStalk 11:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Response--it's not for me to provide reasons to retain the article so much as for the delete !votes to demonstrate their case, because where there's no consensus the presumption is in favour of keep. The question before us is the nominator's "Is this notable?" (since "320 google hits" carries no weight).  My response is that this is the kind of peer-reviewed academic journal that would, in other AFD's, serve as a reliable source.  But as I said, I do respect the WP:GNG.  It would be nice to have a view from an expert in pharmacology if possible, and I'll tag the article for expert attention.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I find this to be a confusing response. (i) While the nominator may only have had a WP:GOOGLEHITS rationale, Alexius08's clearly had a basis in WP:GNG -- therefore a 'no valid reason given to delete so let's keep' view is not supported. (ii) WP:RS != WP:NOTE (so the fact that it "would, in other AFD's, serve as a reliable source" would appear to be irrelevant). (iii) I'm not sure that an 'expert' would add anything -- as even if they state 'it's a really really important journal', we are still left with the lack of third party sources which (1) is the actual criteria (and is backed by WP:V) & (2) is what is actually needed to form the basis of a halfway decent article. HrafnTalkStalk 15:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that was confusing. My position is that I do see the notability argument, and I do give it due weight; but I'm afraid I still feel a peer-reviewed academic journal is the kind of thing that merits a wikipedia article.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * keep:. I am a health care professional and subscribe to this newsletter. The information provided is of high quality and well referenced with links to PubMed.  This article in Wikipedia is also very similar to an already approved one called Medical Letter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srutherf09 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: As a healthcare professional, I felt that posting factual and publically known information about this company would be beneficial to other people wanting to do research on medical education companies offering such services.  Pharmacology Weekly is very similar to the other online medical education companies offering newsletter services (for example the Medical Letter which is also found in Wikipedia; Journal Watch & Treatment Guidelines….etc).  However, this service is sent to health care providers versus people coming to the site. Therefore, for someone looking to learn about companies who offer this needed service may be able to find Wikipedia a good source for reviewing simple objective information about those companies.  I will say that like, the Medical Letter, Pharmacology Weekly is technically not a medical journal – it appears that someone made an edit suggesting it this.  It is a company that provides an electronic medical newsletter service to medical professionals.  However, the material contained in the newsletters is peer reviewed by licensed healthcare professionals and is fully referenced with reputable sources of information for the purpose of educating healthcare professionals about pharmacology.  Therefore, I feel like this information about this company can be useful for those doing research on medical education companies, no different than other companies who also have information posted about them on Wikipedia.--GeneRx (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it's notable because its a listed peer-review journal. --Mr Accountable (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to delete, with apologies. Now it's become clear this is a commercial newsletter service rather than an academic journal, I no longer see any reason to be lenient with the GNG.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:52, 23 January 2009 (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.