Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Nutrition & Food Sciences

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. J04n(talk page) 03:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Nutrition & Food Sciences[edit]

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

OA journal published by OMICS Publishing Group. Indexed in CAS, ProQuest, EBSCO, DOAJ, and (like almost all OA journals in the biomedical field) PubMed Central (and hence PubMed). None of these listings is particularly selective. The claim that the journal is indexed by Thomson Reuters is false (easy to check through the Thomson Reuters Master Journal List. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The journal has been indexed in Thomson Reuters Master Journal List. easy to check through the [1].Selective listing.Dorisaviram (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC) — Dorisaviram (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The journal is listed in the TR Master Journal List. However, as that list entry shows, the journal is not indexed by any Thomson Reuters database. I searched the Web of Science (having access to most TR databases) and found 1 (one) article that cited 1 (one) article published in this journal. Note that the above editor also added "indexing" by HINARI, Open J-Gate, SHERPA, and JournalSeek to the article. These are all non-selective databases that normally are not even listed in journal articles. I will leave them in place for the duration of this AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:18, 26 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) 19:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Per nom... Please check WP:NJournals article..It has been clearly stated in Notes and Examples that the journal should be included in the major indexing services..It has been included in TR Master Journal List(Irrespective of listed/Indexed).I feel you know the difference between indexing services and Indexed.So, to my knowledge this article satisfies the criteria and can be skipped from deletion.Dorisaviram (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Is there any rule stating articles created by "someone who appears to be associated with a number of OA journals of the type usually described as "predatory"; " should be deleted in Wikipedia.

Irrespective of the person who created the article, we should focus on the articles authenticity...whether to be included or not...Dorisaviram (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I know the difference between indexing services and indexed. This one is not indexed in any Thomson Reuters service, despite being listed in the master journals list. From what I know of the academic publishing industry, this journal still has a long way to go before TR will consider this one even for their more minor databases, let alone the Science Citation Index. --Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At present time the journal is not indexed by any Thomson Reuters database. Come back in three years time. Then it could be judged if the journal gained some relevance. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Master Journal list includes journals which are listed because they were cited once. Citation indexes by their nature include them, no matter how insignificant,. It doesn't count DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 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.