Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hepotoma Research

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 Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hepotoma Research

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

Does not appear to be a notable research journal. The journal (which is Hepatoma Research; the title is a typo) has not been covered in reliable sources, and is not listed on either Scopus or Web of Science. A7 was declined by Graeme Bartlett. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A7 is not really intended for academic journals (even though one could argue that an on-line only journal like this one is a "website"). I just PRODded the article at almost the same time that this was nominated for AfD. This is a non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. As an aside, the only claim to fame here is being published by OAE Publishing, which is on Beall's list of predatory publishers. --Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would say being published by OAE is almost a claim against notability... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SOAPBOXy article, especially considering the predatory publisher. PS, the article is spelled incorrectly; it should be Hepatoma Research. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Randykitty. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not currently convincing for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 27 April 2016 (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.