Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current Pharmaceutical Design

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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Pharmaceutical Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Listed in PubMed, highly-ranked in its field. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[1] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --Elonka 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's "The number 1 journal for reviews in drug design and discovery" (emphasis on reviews: by other measures, it's "just" in the top 10%), significant circulation, indexed in more than a dozen major scholarly search systems. Again, this information is easy to find, if the proposer could have been bothered to make any effort at all to improve the article instead of just bringing it to AfD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Elonka, WhatamIdoing. Edward321 (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as previously mentioned, a very well known peer reviewed journal that passes WP:N and WP:V. and like whataIdoing stated, DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE ADDED A BUNCH OF STUBS for deletion!!!! Medicellis (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with additions - As someone who's read and cited this journal many times, I can attest to its popularity. All of the above users have demonstrated its notability from credible sources. I'll also throw in my own source: the Journal Citation Reports, available from the ISI's Web of Knowledge database. That said, some of this information needs to incorporated into the article ASAP; otherwise, this'll be an AfD again in no time. —Skittleys (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Stub has been expanded, with infobox and image. --Elonka 04:24, 14 July 2008 (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.