Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current Approaches in Psychiatry

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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Current Approaches in Psychiatry

[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)

Non-notable journal associated with the predatory published ScopeMed. Fails WP:NJOURNALS Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Headbomb, what makes you say that this is associated with ScopeMed? Also, the journal was in Scopus from 2014 to 2017. --Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- See the 2nd external link and online-access/online-archives links (or [1]). Also, if you don't have WP:UPSD, I recommend using it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason those links render blank pages for me, but if I understand correctly, this journal used to be in some relationship with ScopeMed. However, it now seems to be published independently and also does not appear to be predatory(access is free and authors don't pay a submission or article processing fee). It was indexed by Scopus, which we usually take as satisfying NJournals. That the listing was discontinued is not really relevant, notability is not temporary. --Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Listing in Scopus is generally taken to satisfy NJournals. In the present case, only a few years of the journal are indexed, hence the "weak". --Randykitty (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I find it very difficult to access articles to establish notability for this journal. All I could find was something from Northern Clinics of Instanbul on obesity and BMI. EBSCO bombed, Elseiver, you have to apply and wait. Observations above about submissions appear to be valid, and observations about other sources indexing this journal also appear to be valid. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2021 (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.