Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current Protocols in Bioinformatics Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Current_Protocols_in_Bioinformatics

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 Current Protocols. Tone 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Protocols in Bioinformatics

(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). Shadowjams (talk) 19:37, 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) 21:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge They can best be treated together. or possibly merged. Current protocols is not a textbook. It is a notable group of publications , one of the the major classic groups of reference works in biochemistry and related subjects. It's published by Wiley, a major biomedical publisher. It's indexed in Scopus, Pub med, Excerpta Medica, the standard indexes. It would probably be possible to show the publications as individually notable, but that does not mean that merging might no be the best way to present the material. The best known of the series, Current methods in molecular biology is in over 500 WorldCat libraries in print format; t As books, they were published as a binder of looseleaf sections for the methods, and were updated by additional sections for additional methods--in that sense only are they analogous to legal reporter format. The books are not analogous in content to legal reporters. They're collections of standard methods,each section standing alone, not classified results of decisions. Science librarians consider in most librarians consider this a terrible format to keep track of. and in most libraries they were replaced by a CD ; a library received a single CD with all the sections, and unlocked those titles it had subscribed to. They are now usually subscribed to in the form of a database, and the library pays for what sections it chooses. It is extremely difficult from available records to find out how many libraries subscribe to which of the sections. I agree the contents as entered were not very useful, and I'll fix up the article or articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very aware of the content distinctions; the point re: legal reporters is that the series collectively are an information tool in a field, and that the individual titles represent a relatively non-notable segmentation of the information. The might caveat on Current Protocols itself was because I'm unfamiliar with day-to-day practice in the bio-medical sciences and therefore do not know if the Current Protocols series is the only/dominant/leading tool of this type, or a "Johnny-come-lately" with .05% market share that is being flogged heavily by a major publisher, with everybody who's anybody using (to pick a plausible publisher) the similar series by Elsevier. Studerby (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2010 (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.