Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Science (journal)
- 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 redirect to Scientific Research Publishing. MBisanz talk 21:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Natural Science (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rather new journal, published by a controversial publisher (see Scientific Research Publishing). On its homepage www.scirp.org/Journal/Indexing.aspx?JournalID=69[predatory publisher], there is a long list of indexes that purportedly cover this journal. However, they don't really seem to know what "coverage" means, given that they seem to think that the Web of Science "covers" this journal (it doesn't, it just lists citations to this journal from journals that are covered). Some databases are mentioned in the journal, but contrary to what is mentioned in the article, these are not very selective and they are not the "major databases" intended by WP:NJournals. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPDELETE and REDIRECT This is a well indexed and notable journal. This journal is cited repeatedly in various other documents including other journals. But does not meet WP:Journal per David Eppstein's reasons below.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Delete and redirect to Scientific Research Publishing for most of the same reasons I already gave at the AfD for another journal by the same publisher, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Quantum Information Science. We do not have evidence (in the form of indexing in selective third-party indices, as opposed to the take-all-comers ones) that this is a notable or significant journal. And we do have evidence (given on the publisher's article) that the publisher is a predatory one that has engaged in scientific misconduct including copying papers inappropriately from other journals and failing to conduct proper peer review. The lack of evidence for the quality of this particular journal presents us with a neutrality dilemma: we can't accuse it of being one of the bad ones without evidence but on the other hand we don't want to present it as respectable when it may not be. The problem is caused precisely because the journal does not pass WP:GNG in that we do not have nontrivial sources that pay particular attention to the quality of this specific journal. The one difference between this AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Quantum Information Science is that in that case there was also an issue with promotional and COI edits by the article creator, whereas in this case the responsible editor (Phoenixred) appears to be of good faith. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What can I say? Your argument was convincing. I have changed my opinion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE andredirect and merge if needed - for those of us who are not admins (just me so far, apparently), I would appreciate the closer not putting the current state of the article beyond my reach before telling me its part of something larger and that it may or may not be notable on its own due toitsthe publisher's unknown "academic credibility". The Steve 01:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]- But the publisher has hundreds of journals — too many to list them all. So what information from this article do you think should be merged, or what evidence do you have that it is enough more notable than the others to warrant being included in a smaller list of selected journals by that publisher? But I have no particular objection if the decision is to just redirect, without doing an actual delete that would make the old versions inaccessible to non-admins. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps none. It is indeed the delete that bothers me. The merge is an editorial decision that I usually put as a matter of course with a redirect. Occasionally I will perform the merge myself. I prefer to be able to see the information under a redirect, scarce as it may be. I have various reasons for this preference, and I can go into more detail on your talk page, if you wish... The Steve 10:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the publisher has hundreds of journals — too many to list them all. So what information from this article do you think should be merged, or what evidence do you have that it is enough more notable than the others to warrant being included in a smaller list of selected journals by that publisher? But I have no particular objection if the decision is to just redirect, without doing an actual delete that would make the old versions inaccessible to non-admins. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on mergeI oppose a "merge and redirect" decision. There are several reasons for this: First, the article as it currently stands has zero information sourced to reliable sources (Ulrich's just lists publisher-provided info), so there is nothing supported by reliable sources here. Second, what goes for this journal, goes for all the other journals from this publisher: are we going to present info on each and every one of their journals (in a neutral way) in the article on the publisher? I already see them opening the bottles of champagne... Third, if the article is not deleted but only replaced by a redirect, we'll have to put that redirect on our watchlists, because given this publishers history of trying to spam WP, we can expect regular attempts to revert the redirect. If there is no redirect, any recreation will pop up on the new article feed and is likely to be picked up by someone. (Of course, this third reason is just an argument of convenience, my first two arguments are the most important ones). --Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) talk 00:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks non-notable to me. Probably delete. My very best wishes (talk) 03:50, 6 December 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.