Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APL Photonics

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

APL Photonics[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason " Non-notable, relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator, who added a phrase that the journal is indexed in the Web of Science. Wos is not an indexing service, but an access platform. In fact, this journal is indexed by the Emerging Sources Citation Index, a rather non-selective database that even contains several predatory journals (of course, I'm not saying this journal is predatory, this is just to indicate that the ESCI is not selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. PROD reason therefore still stands, article creation premature. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a solid journal from a respected publisher, but it is too new for independent reliable sources or to be included in selective indices. Without such reliable sources, the topic currently fails WP:GNG and WP:NJournals thresholds. I expect this will eventually become notable, as with its sister publication APL Materials, but right now it is WP:TOOSOON. Hence delete, with no prejudice to re-creation when reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any journal published by AIP is ex officio notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Even solid publishers occasionally have the occasional dud. As of now, we don't know yet whether this journal is going to make it or not. And I think that ex officio definitely goes against WP:INHERITED... --Randykitty (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:TOOSOON. Fails GNG and NJournal at this point in time. Jytdog (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This journal is indexed in The Emerging Sources Citation Index ("Master Journal List". Intellectual Property and Science. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 3 January 2017.) and The Directory of Open Access Journals ("Directory of Open Access Journals". APL Photonics. Directory of Open Access Journals. Retrieved 3 January 2017.).Physicsfan2015 (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)— Physicsfan2015 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: neither of those two indexes is selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. The ESCI is so permissive, that it even contains known predatory journals. DOAJ strives to include every OA journal, regardless of its importance or influence. So this still is no evidence of passing NJournals or GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a new journal from a reputable publisher, this seems likely to be notable eventually, but I think it's WP:TOOSOON, and the article doesn't actually present any evidence that it's notable already. Nor does it present any informative content that couldn't be obtained directly from the journal's home page. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Randykitty. This fails WP:NJOURNALS, likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. No objection to recreation if/when this becomes notable. This could alternatively be merged at American Institute of Physics though. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:58, 5 January 2017 (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.