Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Society for Clinical Ophthalmology

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Society for Clinical Ophthalmology[edit]

Fairly spammy article about an organization that does not seem notable. Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:CORP. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

It is the journal of the above organization, and does not seem notable either (& fails WP:V). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to WorldCat, the journal (ISSN 1177-5467) started in 2007 and is only held in three libraries. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it's a free open access online journal, it will usually not be a priority for formal cataloging. That's not a usable criterion here. DGG (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a vanity page for subject of aforementioned article. Not notable either, seems ad-like. Letsdrinktea (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although the journ al website is ambiguous (at some point is mentions a print ISBN and that one has to register to be able to buy article views, at other points it says that Dover does not produce print at all and that all articles are OA), every article I clicked on is indeed OA and DGG is right that this explains the low library count. (On the other hand, the WP article mentions print again...) The journal is indexed in PubMed, which is critical, but less so than ISI. The journal will have a tough time gettig in there (and get an impact factor), because Opthalmology is not directly a field lacking existing journals (a journal filling an empty niche sometimes gets into ISI in the first year of publication). Articles mention numbers of views and I looked at all articles from issue 1(1) (some actually marked "Free Paper"). The most viewed article has been accessed 906 times, the inaugural editorial 1650 times. Compared to figures from, e.g., BiomedCentral journals, this is very low. In all, I don't think the journal is notable yet and I !vote delete for it. I have no opinion on the society yet. Do we know how many members they have? And what proportion of opthalmologists that is? There must be other societies in this field, why did they found a new one? For the society I abstain for the moment. --Crusio (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2009 (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.