Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy (2nd nomination)

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.  Sandstein  07:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy (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)

Article was deleted after PROD in 2013 and recreated today. I have done a huge amount of cleanup, the original version (with all 19 "references" and "further reading") is here. All references are just library catalog entries or even have nothing to do with the journal (such as "general references" to books that were published decades before this journal was established). Not a single independent reference that actually says something about this journal itself. Not indexed in any selective databases, not even Scopus. The journal still does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: delete. (Note: previous AfD was closed "no consensus" for lack of participation). Randykitty (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This journal is now five years old and it didn´t manage to get an impact factor by ISI Web of Science. Therefore it should be deleted. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete barring the discovery of additional sources that would establish notability via WP:GNG. I didn't find anything appropriate. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm trying to find this in Ulrichsweb and so far I can't locate it, which isn't really a good sign considering it's been out for about 5 years. I tried searching by the publisher's name and only brought up one title, which wasn't this one - also not a good sign. I'll try searching a little more. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Above arguments are convincing and fails the notability threshold of being included in databases.68.148.186.93 (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2015 (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.