399:
other reliable sources. 3. The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history. All of this must be addressed via "independent reliable sources". If there are independent reliable sources, they can be produced for this discussion -- but as things stand there are none on the article (only the journal's own website is being cited) and notability is entirely lacking. You are also incorrect in describing NJournals as a guideline; in fact it is an essay. The upshot of that comment is that a journal must meet the general notability standards of
Knowledge; again, independent sources are required, and there is no evidence that any are available.
429:, e.g., because it is indexed in Scopus or has a valid impact factor, that is usually enough to keep the article. People rarely write news articles or peer-reviewed papers about journals, so criteria like having reasonably large impact factors or being indexed in a selective database are useful proxies for judging notability. In his case I think of the the selective indices as the independent reliable sources considering the journal in depth.
442:
indicates that criterion 1 is satisfied if "the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field", and again in AfD practice, a single selective database has been enough. Note 3 indicates that CAS qualifies as a selective databse. Given that the journal is in indexed in CAS, then Note
555:
Today I add a new argument. The journal is not indexed by any
Thomson Reuters database. I searched the Web of Science (having access to all TR databases) and found not a single article that cited any article published in this journal. Considering the fact, that the journal is now eight years old and
398:
Mark Viking, you are not applying NJournals correctly. It does not say, if a journal is listed in CAS it is notable on that basis. The criteria specified by NJournals are: 1. The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. 2. The journal is frequently cited by
455:
is satisfied and the journal can be considered notable. Randykitty and I are often on the same page on these issues, but the crux of our disagreement in this case is the weight that CAS lends to notability; I think it is enough and
Randykitty does not. I can understand his point of view; that the
261:
per nom. Article created by someone who appears to be associated with a number of OA journals of the type usually described as "predatory"; this sort of misuse of
Knowledge can't be allowed to stand, certainly when notability is so lacking.
166:
197:
OA journal publishing a handful of papers per year. Indexed in CAS, DOAJ, and (like almost all OA journals in the biomedical field) PubMed
Central (and hence PubMed). None of these listings is particularly
92:
87:
160:
96:
79:
456:
journal isn't in some of the larger indices is a definitely a mark against notability. But 'keep' is the conclusion I come to in my best interpretation of policy, guideline, and essay. --
503:
Sohail in Oxford. This guy published his last scientific paper in 2007. A editor-in-chief who publishes no scientific paper for more then six years is pathetic and so is the journal. --
126:
227:
119:
83:
181:
499:
I checked on the editor-in-chief. According to the journal the editor-in-chief is located in Oxford, UK. It is possible to track a lecturer with name
148:
75:
67:
362:
is a guideline and not policy, it has been basically treated as policy in AfD discussions about academic journals in recent months. Thus passing
565:
543:
512:
483:
465:
408:
393:
375:
336:
292:
271:
250:
219:
61:
142:
138:
311:
307:
188:
425:
has been a standard against which journals have been judged at many AfDs. The current AfD practice is that if a journal passes
17:
327:
databases? Absolutely not. Independent sources? None that I can see. Criteria have been checked, this fails them all. --
154:
479:
404:
347:
267:
244:
584:
40:
283:.Indexed,Coverage,Independent sources..I request the above two pioneers to check the criteria before deleting...
346:
I appreciate that nobody likes predatory journals. But as the nominator mentions, this journal is indexed in
580:
475:
461:
400:
371:
263:
36:
556:
enough time past by to establish some notability, no scientist is taking notice from that journal. --
561:
508:
474:? These things go together: no RSs means no notability, and without RSs we can't write an article.
389:
332:
303:
288:
215:
470:
You're not addressing the point about sources. How can we write an article without sources meeting
452:
448:
444:
439:
435:
426:
422:
418:
363:
359:
355:
351:
280:
203:
174:
537:
57:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
579:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
522:
457:
367:
557:
504:
385:
328:
299:
284:
211:
500:
239:
534:
354:
as an example of a selective database. Thus the journal seems to pass notability per
207:
53:
471:
113:
525:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
434:
Given that context, my chain of reasoning is as follows. Take criterion 1 in
232:
573:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
384:
Then perhaps we need to change the example in NJournals... --
421:
is an essay, not a guideline. But it is also true that
109:
105:
101:
173:
532:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
350:(CAS), and CAS is mentioned in point 3 of section
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
587:). No further edits should be made to this page.
279:per nom. Article meets criteria according to
187:
8:
366:thresholds suggests keeping this article. --
228:list of Science-related deletion discussions
226:Note: This debate has been included in the
225:
76:Journal of Molecular and Genetic Medicine
68:Journal of Molecular and Genetic Medicine
202:. No independent sources. Does not meet
447:is satisfied and thus criterion 1 in
7:
24:
445:WP:NJournals#Notes and examples
440:WP:NJournals#Notes and examples
352:WP:NJournals#Notes and examples
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
323:Indexed? Absolutely yes. In
604:
484:06:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
466:04:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
409:19:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
394:17:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
376:16:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
348:Chemical Abstracts Service
337:17:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
293:16:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
272:05:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
251:21:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
220:20:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
576:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
566:12:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
544:00:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
513:10:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
451:is satisfied, and thus
438:as the test. Note 1 in
62:14:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
449:WP:NJournals#Criteria
436:WP:NJournals#Criteria
312:few or no other edits
314:outside this topic.
417:I stand corrected;
48:The result was
546:
315:
253:
595:
578:
540:
531:
527:
476:Nomoskedasticity
401:Nomoskedasticity
325:selective, major
297:
264:Nomoskedasticity
249:
247:
242:
237:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
603:
602:
598:
597:
596:
594:
593:
592:
591:
585:deletion review
574:
538:
520:
245:
240:
233:
231:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
601:
599:
590:
589:
569:
568:
549:
548:
547:
529:
528:
517:
516:
515:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
431:
430:
412:
411:
396:
379:
378:
340:
339:
317:
316:
295:
274:
255:
254:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
600:
588:
586:
582:
577:
571:
570:
567:
563:
559:
554:
551:
550:
545:
542:
541:
536:
530:
526:
524:
519:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
495:
494:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
468:
467:
463:
459:
454:
450:
446:
441:
437:
433:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
415:
414:
413:
410:
406:
402:
397:
395:
391:
387:
383:
382:
381:
380:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
342:
341:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
319:
318:
313:
309:
305:
301:
296:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
275:
273:
269:
265:
260:
257:
256:
252:
248:
243:
238:
236:
229:
224:
223:
222:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
575:
572:
552:
533:
521:
496:
453:WP:NJournals
427:WP:NJournals
423:WP:NJournals
419:WP:NJournals
364:WP:NJournals
360:WP:NJournals
356:WP:NJournals
343:
324:
320:
281:WP:NJournals
276:
258:
234:
204:WP:NJournals
199:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
458:Mark viking
368:Mark viking
310:) has made
161:free images
558:Shisha-Tom
505:Shisha-Tom
386:Randykitty
329:Randykitty
300:Paulwood99
285:Paulwood99
212:Randykitty
581:talk page
200:selective
37:talk page
583:or in a
523:Relisted
501:Muhammad
358:. While
308:contribs
120:View log
58:Edgar181
39:or in a
539:Faraone
321:Comment
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
553:Delete
497:Delete
259:Delete
208:WP:GNG
139:Google
97:delete
50:delete
472:WP:RS
443:1 in
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
52:. --
16:<
562:talk
509:talk
480:talk
462:talk
405:talk
390:talk
372:talk
344:Keep
333:talk
304:talk
289:talk
277:Keep
268:talk
235:czar
216:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
206:or
189:TWL
118:– (
564:)
511:)
482:)
464:)
407:)
392:)
374:)
335:)
306:•
298:—
291:)
270:)
230:.
218:)
210:.
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
54:Ed
560:(
535:L
507:(
478:(
460:(
403:(
388:(
370:(
331:(
302:(
287:(
266:(
246:·
241:·
214:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.