Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Journal of Science and Technology

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. Rlendog (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Journal of Science and Technology

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

No indication of notability: no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Article was created by an individual with a clear conflict of interest: User:Indianjournal. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed per nom. Gamble2Win (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~keep~~delete Although the article was created by a COI editor, it was completely re-written within a few days of its creation. I have updated the article: it is abstracted and indexed by CAS and The Zoological Record. The journal's website also claims that it is indexed by the Science Citation Index and Scopus. I have not been able to verify that: the Thomson Reuters master journal list only mentions TZR and I cannot open the Scopus coverage list (my version of Excel is too old...). However, when I search Scopus for this journal, I don't find anything. It is possible, of course, that the journal only recently got accepted for SCI and Scopus and that these databases have not been updated yet. ~~Nevertheless, I think that the listings in CASSI and TZR are just sufficient for a keep, albeit barely.~~ Upon reflection, I don't think that inclusion in TZR and CASSI is suffiecient grounds for a keep !vote (even a weak one...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:NJournals is an essay not a guideline or policy (although it confusingly states its a guideline in the text). It doesn't met the criteria there either due to it's dubious reliability. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mention NJournals in my !vote at all... TZR and CASSI are reliable sources under WP:GNG and both seem to think that this journal is worthy of inclusion. I think that says something. I'd like to see more, though, which is why I didn't !vote "keep" but only "weak keep". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that TZR and CASSI are reliable sources. Note that significant coverage in reliable sources is required per WP:GNG though . IRWolfie- (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update by poster A further note. Just to point out, the journal has a dubious level of peer review and is not a reliable source for use in wikipedia except to state the opinions of individual authors. (for example see the paper Everything: Non-Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things and Living Things published by the journal in 2010 which states: "the very concept of space-time has been proved to be a mathematical misrepresentation. A unified theory of forces in nature has been proposed. The theistic Foundation of Theory of Everything also envisages the theory for living things with primary concern of the life of human beings. The characteristics of the ‘soul’ energy has been defined; besides proposal has been put forward regarding the characteristics of the ‘energies’ which being the source of life in all plants and animals. ". Since the journal is unused as a reliable source on wikipedia, WP:IAR for the purpose of providing blue links in references doesn't apply. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rather than going by WP:NJournals, I think the right guidelines for this case are WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Our current article gives the impression (belied by IRWolfie's observations above) that this is a perfectly respectable journal with full peer review. To counter this, we would need reliable sources saying it isn't, which are unavailable. So because of its inadequate level of notability, we are unable to provide an accurate and neutral article about it; I think the best way to resolve this is to just not cover it at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability beyond its own website. Some dubious material contained therein. Very broad topic area and inhomogeneous editorial board, usually an indicator of a dumping-ground. Famous _dog (c) 13:20, 27 June 2012 (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.