Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics

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. Noting that not meeting the WP:NJOURNALS or WP:GNG notability criteria is not a comment on the quality of the journal itself, merely an indicator that it's new and has not itself been the subject of third-party coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that this is a relatively new journal. However, the journal already contains contributions from very notable groups such as Caltech, Texas A&M University, University of Western Australia, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and others. It's sufficient to browse the first issue of the journal to see that it is already quite notable, given the contributions, including review articles, from the leading authorities in their respective fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Databases77 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — Databases77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That's great and may mean that the journal may become notable in the future (although right now my crystall ball is defect, so I'm not sure) and we can write an article id=f that happens. Right now, though, I have to point you to WP:NOTINHERITED. --Randykitty (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, based on the above comments, to say that "Notability is inherited" is misleading and is not correct. It's clearly not the case here. The only correct claim made so far here in favour of this entry deletion was that the journal is new. Nevertheless, publications of some of the world most famous teams in the journal show that the entry deserves to stay. --Mirnauki77 (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC) — Mirnauki77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a promising journal, newly launched in 2013. I was unable to find multiple independent reliable sources covering this journal and it is not yet indexed in selective indices; nor does it yet have an impact factor. This it seems to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NJournals thresholds. I believe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has elapsed for this journal to acquire reliable sources or reliable indexing. No prejudice to recreation when such sources or indexing become available. --Mark viking (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it was pointed out, it is a journal that is promising, available both in print and electronically via IngentaConnect, already indexed in GoogleScholar, and already included in the Thomson Reuters EndNote. It makes sense to keep the entry.--Mirnauki77 (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC) — Mirnauki77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Google Scholar strives to include everything. IngentaConnect simply presents everything of publishers that are members of their organization. EndNote is a referencing software package. To be useful for as large a public as possible, they include reference profiles from as many journals as possible. Hence, none of these things contributes anything to notability. "Promising" is nice, but even established publishers sometimes start a promising journal only to have it fizzle after a few years. In sum, at best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its a new journal and its not notable in the community. Its definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON.202.52.53.226 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2014 (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.