Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences[edit]

Article was PRODded in main article space with reason "Non-notable new journal, likely predatory. Website lists fake impact factors. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." It was moved to Draft space and de-PRODded by Anachronist with reason "Not ready for main space, and COI editors should submit articles for review in draft space". I don't need a crystal ball to see that there's no chance at all that this rag will get notable anytime soon, probably never. In addition, it's beyond me why anybody would have content on a likely predatory journal even in draft space. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is going nowhere but in the trash Legacypac (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Any article deleted via prod can be restored instantly by request at WP:REFUND. Personally, I think that's a waste of administrator time, because often these end up at AFD anyway as a more permanent deletion. So an admin has to delete it once, then restore it, then delete it again. It isn't much work on a single article basis, but Wikipedia is always growing, the number of active admins isn't growing, and multiplied by many poor articles like this, it starts adding up. Randykitty (talk · contribs), in my opinion, erred by prodding an article when "there's no chance at all that this rag will get notable". He should have gone directly to AFD, or found a CSD rationale to speedy-delete it. So I moved it to draft space, because there's always a chance that in the six month countdown to deletion there, the author would provide some evidence of notability. Now here we are at a more permanent deletion decision, which should have been done in the first place.
I would say this is WP:TOOSOON to be notable. However, having worked in the scholarly online publishing world, I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't a legitimate journal, as I have seen other open-access journals that are reputable. As examples, larger publishers such as American Society of Hematology or Society for Neuroscience publish open-access journals that charge authors a fee (I know because I built the websites for their open-access journals[1][2]). That doesn't make them predatory, that's just the business model required for an open-access journal to remain viable. Ad revenue from these isn't sufficient by itself. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody has ever said that article processing charges are reason enough to call a journal predatory. Many reputable publishers have OA journals, including PLOS, BioMedCentral, Wiley, Elsevier, Nature, Springer, and the societies you mention. But if a journal is advertising on its website that it has an Index Copernicus value and a "Global Impact Factor" (a fake impact factor company), as well as a host of other fake indexing services that's a good sign of something being predatory. Add to that an amateurish website (calling for submissions for "volume 3, issue 2" when the "past issues" page indicates that they're currently filling issue 3 of volume 2 plus an editorial board listing associate professors and even postdoctoral fellows and the picture is quite clear. And in my experience, most articles deleted after a PROD usually stay deleted for quite a while (and speedily-deleted articles can be re-created without much problem, too). I have PRODded many journal articles and the vast majority of those have not been re-created. PROD saves time, but if you feel strongly enough about this, perhaps you should propose that we get rid of PROD as the increased number of AFDs that would results in would actually save us time... --Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - We need a notability guideline about predatory journals. Predatory journals may be notable for being predatory, just as we can have articles about real hoaxes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We do have articles on predatory publishers, because they sometimes meet GNG because people write about how crappy they are (and sometimes their own actions are reported upon, as when OMICS sued Jeffrey Beall for a billion in damages). This particular journal/publisher has not generated any interest that I am aware of. Like I said in the nom: not in any index, no independent sources. --Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NMFD, notability is not relevant in draft space. No valid policy-based reason to delete has been mentioned. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let me get this right: you think that any crap is admissible in draft space? Even if it's spam for a predatory journal? --Randykitty (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a draft is truly "spam", that is to say, blatant promotion, then it can be deleted under G11. If it is not quite spammy enough for G11, but still very promotional, it can be deleted at AfD if an article, or at MfD if a draft. A draft ought to be give considerably more leeway than an article in this regard, precisely because it should be in the process of beign improved. Many newcomers do not understand WP:NPOV, and initially write drafts much too promotional for mainspace, which can be and are revised to become valid articles. I do not see this as even close to the level of promotion which would justify deletion in draft space. As to "predatory journal", as per Anachronist, merely charging publication fees does not make a journal "predatory". Moreover, as per Robert McClenon, a journal might be predatory and quite notable, just as an embezzler might be more notable than an honest accountant. Moreover, to label a specific journal as "predatory" is disparaging if not defamatory, and really should be supported by a source, even on a MfD page. Who says this journal is predatory? No, I wouldn't say that any crap is admissible in draft space, but I would say that deletion should be used in only the most extreme cases. The usual response to a poor draft should be prompt rejection with a clear indication of the reasons. Once in a while, the result is a text improved enough to become a valid article. Even when that doesn't happen, the result may be an editor who learns to make useful contributions. Exactly what policy-based reason for deletion is being urged here? As per WP:NMFD it can't be lack of notability, as that is not a valid reason to delete a draft. 23:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

delete advertisement for a low quality journal that even our directory-oriented WP:JOURNALS people think should go. If they want something to be gone, it must really be not worthy, since they try like hell to maintain things that fail GNG on a regular basis. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.