Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Molecular and Genetic Medicine

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Molecular and Genetic Medicine[edit]

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

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 selective. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 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 Wikipedia can't be allowed to stand, certainly when notability is so lacking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Article meets criteria according to WP:NJournals .Indexed,Coverage,Independent sources..I request the above two pioneers to check the criteria before deleting...Paulwood99 (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Paulwood99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Indexed? Absolutely yes. In selective, major databases? Absolutely not. Independent sources? None that I can see. Criteria have been checked, this fails them all. --Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I appreciate that nobody likes predatory journals. But as the nominator mentions, this journal is indexed in Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), and CAS is mentioned in point 3 of section WP:NJournals#Notes and examples as an example of a selective database. Thus the journal seems to pass notability per WP:NJournals. While WP:NJournals is a guideline and not policy, it has been basically treated as policy in AfD discussions about academic journals in recent months. Thus passing WP:NJournals thresholds suggests keeping this article. --Mark viking (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps we need to change the example in NJournals... --Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 Wikipedia; again, independent sources are required, and there is no evidence that any are available. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected; WP:NJournals is an essay, not a guideline. But it is also true that WP:NJournals has been a standard against which journals have been judged at many AfDs. The current AfD practice is that if a journal passes WP:NJournals, 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.

Given that context, my chain of reasoning is as follows. Take criterion 1 in WP:NJournals#Criteria as the test. Note 1 in WP:NJournals#Notes and examples 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 1 in WP:NJournals#Notes and examples is satisfied and thus criterion 1 in WP:NJournals#Criteria is satisfied, and thus WP:NJournals 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 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. --Mark viking (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not addressing the point about sources. How can we write an article without sources meeting WP:RS? These things go together: no RSs means no notability, and without RSs we can't write an article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 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 Muhammad 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. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 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 enough time past by to establish some notability, no scientist is taking notice from that journal. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2013 (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.