Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy

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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy

(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. Randykitty (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if our measurements are adequate for Asia-based open access publications – our indizes are still culturally biassed. The journal is however listed in PubMed, seems to be peer-reviewed and is published by a Wolters Kluwer subsidiary. A number of articles have been cited quite widely by Indian and Chinese autors in both journal articles and major publisher books. Some more input would be welcome. --PanchoS (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our guidelines are perfectly appropriate to journals based anywhere. Several Medknow journals are Scopus or Science Citation Index-listed. Medknow, by the way, may have offices in India, it is an imprint of Wolters-Kluwer, a huge international publisher. The editor is based in Saudi Arabia. The PubMed listing is irrelevant: OA journals ghet very easily into PubMed Central and that comes with PubMed indexing. The selective database is MEDLINE (and even more selective is Index Medicus. A smattering of citations to articles is to be expected, but if it were more than a handful, the journal would be in Scopus or SCI by now. --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:36, 14 March 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.