Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current Protocols in Immunology

Current Protocols in Immunology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a textbook of the Current Protocols series. The editor, User:Cpeditorial has created a set of these book articles. I see nothing notable, except links to buy, when I google search for them. Would possibly support a merge to Current Protocols (a page I am not nominating).

Collectively, the page is simply a topic listing, and a link. The entry has WP:DIRECTORY issues, largely due to a lack of notability for each. Shadowjams (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Current Protocols, which might be notable itself. COI spam, and not notable. These books individually are pretty analogous to legal reporters; while notable collectively, only a very very few are notable individually, probably just the Federal Reporter and Supreme Court Reporter. The individual state reporters are not separately notable. Studerby (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current protocols is a very notable group of publications indeed, of the the major classic groups of reference works in biochemistry and related subjects. . I rather disagree with them merging done in the course of this discussion, because I expect I would be able to show this publication by itself as sufficiently notable. It's a longstanding reference work in first a print series, now electronic. 187 WorldCat libraries have the print for this particular title of the group--its hard to tell how many have the looseleaf, because its sold in various combinations. It's published by Wiley, a major biomedical publisher. It's indexed in Scopus, Pub med, Excerpta Medica, I think it independently meets the requirements.. But merge if you like, I'll expand the article and unmerge eventually, I agree the contents as entered were not very useful. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]