Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drug Science, Policy and Law

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 to DrugScience. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 09:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Science, Policy and Law

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no sources. Does meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." The article claims that the journal is indexed in PubMed. This is for selected references only (likely OA articles on NIH-funded research), but not for the selective database MEDLINE (see here). The databases listed in the article and mentioned in the edit summary when the article creator dePRODded the article are not selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. Most of the current article is irrelevant fluff. PROD reason stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right I checked the other Academic papers proposed for deletion, and I see they are never cited, referenced absolutely nowghere, have no publisher, have not even a website...? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academic_journals Compared to that, I believe there are several sources that explain the reach of the article. Checking its publications will show you they are indeed read, maybe it's not the BMJ, but it is certainly significative. Checking the list of authors will show you these are actual scholars that do publish in other journals, not a scam. SAGE is publisher since the inception. I really wonder why is this article proposed for deletion, and as I know there are heavy bias against anything that related to substance use and the problematics that go with it, within the Wikipedia moderators community, I would like to raise the issue here. Should this article be deleted, I would assume that many other academic journals, with much less information, should also be deleted – which might bot be the best way forwards for content on wikipedia. Do academic journal need a publication on the first page of New York Times to be eligible? Do only ultra-high ranking journals are entitled to be present on wikipedia? So Imight have misread this sentence "High quality research can be published in low-circulation journals, just as poor research may be published in widely read journals." on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals) – and other content of the kind that does allow for DSPL to be listed on wikipedia. Opposition is likely just the usual moralist bias moderators have used us to. You can publish any shit about anything on wikipedia, nobody checked it. But you publish a highly relevant information piece, does it mention "drugs" at some point? It'll be flagged for deletion. Only the most prevalent, impossible to delete pages stay (like "cannabis" but not the most useful, most informative, less mainstream pages that, however, do bring valuable balancing knowledge to the encyclopedia. Please consider bypassing the bias and allowing all valuable research to be equally treated under wikipedia rules. --Teluobir (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of the current article is irrelevant fluff" If we're on the diplomatic side of addressing others' work, let's say in return that most of the analysis by Randykitty is irrelevant moralist bias. What do we prefer? irrelevant fluff or moralist bias? Respectfully, --Teluobir (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "moralist bias"? Please comment on the issues not on the person. As for other deletions requests for academic journals, you might want to browse through our archive and/or our journal article writing guide to get an idea of what is needed here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I comment on the issue, which is a flagging of the article for deletion although this article has 50 times more information and criteria fulfilled that the other articles simultaneously proposed for deletion... I did check the archive and saw indeed that all the article that have beed deleted were by far way less accurate, fulfilling the criteria, and providing complete external references, than Drug Science Policy and Law. I have added references accordingly and have also noted that WP:NJournals "provides guidance, not rules; exceptions may well exist", "Most journals nowadays have home pages which may be used as sources for uncontroversial information. If the journal can be considered a reliable source, this will be often be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal. However, this does not exempt the journal from meeting notability requirements", "While the notability of a journal is often correlated to the quality or importance of its scholarship, they are not synonymous. High quality research can be published in low-circulation journals, just as poor research may be published in widely read journals" and "Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched". Where is the research justifying deletion?

Fulfils Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. Fulfils Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. Fulfils Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area. What do we need more? Should a journal created in 2013 reach the same level of coverage than an academic journal with a century of existence? Please advise as what are the actual reasons for proposing deletion, if there are actual reasons other than morals.

Being listed in selective databases is "the most typical way of satisfying C1". It is never mentioned that it is a mandatory requirement whatsoever. Similarly, "having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports usually qualifies". Nowhere it is mentioned that the citation index is a mandatory element to be listed. Or else I would fear that wikipedia soon becomes slightly less useful, or in a conflict of interest with Clarivate Analytics if it only lists the journals present in the "Journal Citation Reports" and no others. The "Journal Citation Reports" is a journal citation report, not an encyclopedia. I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not a journal citation report. --Teluobir (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been commenting the issue all along, nothing personal, don't worry! :-) I would just really be happy if you could quote me the parts of the article that you consider "irrelevant fluff" so we could assess their relevance together. Not sure the use of "irrelevant fluff" to qualify an academic journal helps strengthen your argument that there was no moralist bias involved... Best, Teluobir (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DrugScience as an alternative to deletion. It may one day become notable, as it has a perfectly acceptable editorial board and an okay publisher. It probably isn't just yet notable enough as a stand alone journal but it is part of the parent organisation which is notable. We aren't asking it to be the BMJ, but full indexing would be the norm. I don't think anyone is accusing it of being a scam and I fully agree on the poor coverage of certain drug related topics. It is likely to be a reliable source independently of notability. PainProf (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems a fair enough option to me. Makes total sense in regard of PainProf's insights. --Teluobir (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: This is not a bureaucracy, I'm sure we can speedily merge this and avoid wasting the time of other editors as non-controversial as a publication of a notable organisation with your agreement. PainProf (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An encyclopedia is not a list of journals. . Not only is the journal almost unindexed, but its list of "Most cited articles published in this journal in the last 3 years." contains 1 article with 2 cites and 2 articles with 1 cite each. I'm very inclusive about journals, more so than Randykitty but this is below the level of an encyclopedia, and the many indexing services in the world seem to have concluded it's below their level also.) DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DrugScience, where it is already mentioned. I don't think we need to save any of the content here by merging, but the journal title is a plausible search term. XOR'easter (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. There are cites to add to the main article. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2020 (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.