Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Journal of Computational Molecular Science

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Living Journal of Computational Molecular Science

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation way too soon." DePRODded by article creator. Journal was established this year and has published only single issue yet. Except for a link to the journal's homepage, article is unsourced. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although this is a new journal, I believe it meets the notability guidelines on the basis that it has published a significant number of articles. These articles were written by notable authors in their field. Some of these articles have already received citations (see [1]). The online discussion of the journal is extensive and positive. Since the journal is publishing actively and is being cited, there is a significant public interest is having a Wikipedia entry for it. I often recommend students read the Wikipedia entry of a journal to appreciate its context within the field. This is a technical non-profit journal, so there is no concern about legitimizing pseudoscience or a predatory publisher. The editorial board also includes many notable scientists at leading universities and research institutes (see [2]). Based on the posted criteria, the age of the journal alone is not justification to approve or reject an article creation (RE: creation is "way too soon"); the notability of the journal is the key criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnrowley (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I have edited the above !vote to comply with the usual formatting in AFDs, without changing the wording). To answer the comments made: 1/ A smattering of citations is to be expected for even a new journal. However, the journal is too young to have already accumulated a significant amount of citations, this does not meet NJournals. 2/ "The online discussion of the journal is extensive and positive": please show us. If this is in reliable sources, it might establish notability under GNG. 3/ That the journal is publishing actively is irrelevant. 4/ "I often recommend students read the Wikipedia entry of a journal to appreciate its context within the field." WP can only put a journal into the context of its field if there are reliable sources independent of the journal that do this. Our personal opinions should stay out of it. 5/ Nobody says the journal is predatory. That it is not fake is not enough reason to include it. 6/ Perhaps the editorial board includes notable scientists. I didn't check this because it is irrelevant because notability is not inherited. --Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability may not be inherited, but, per WP:ACADEMIC, being a chief editor of a major, well established journal is a sign that an academic is notable. In other words, we look at editors of journals to establish the notability of the editor, not to establish the notability of the publication. Rockphed (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this is wp:too soon. Without exhaustively searching the web hits, it looks like most are either self published or are trivial mentions. Rockphed (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I really wanted to vote for this as a keep, I checked the website and they have only published one issue as far as I can tell. I have to unwillingly agree with Rockphed this is wp:too soon. I like the content but I would say this needs to be resubmitted with better references after at least 6 issues. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The journal does not seem to be listed yet in any of the selective indexes such as WebOfScience, Scopus, JCR, etc. Does even seem to have an ISSN at the moment. Nor is there evidence of the journal itself being covered by other types of reliable sources. Does not pass either of WP:NJournals or WP:GNG for now. Nsk92 (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some results of a web search: mention, mention, paywalled mention, in-depth. I don't think there's quite enough here to sustain a stand-alone article (we're about one in-depth source short), but it's a good candidate for a redirect if a suitable target could be proposed. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. The C&EN ref does indicate that the journal may well become notable soon. As for a potential redirect target, something like Academic journal publishing reform may be a possibility. Nsk92 (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's also Scholastica (company), the publishing platform; and UC Boulder, the academic institution with which the journal appears to be affiliated. XOR'easter (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2019 (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.