- 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. j⚛e decker talk 00:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Current Chemistry Letters ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 07:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Do NOT Delete New journal. Indexed by Chemical Abstract, DOAJ, Index-copernicus and many Electronic Journals Libraries in well known universities around the world as well as MNiSzW in Poland. In my opinion you have to give the opportunity to inform about it. wariag
- None of that meets WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. At this point, the only reliable source is an inclusion on a list of predatory publishers, which in and of itself is not enough to make a journal notable either. -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 15:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 15:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 15:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty ( talk) 15:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. It doesn't pass WP:NJournals and in general I think it's a bad idea to have articles on individual predatory open-access journals (there are so many of them and they play an insignificant role in real science). If its publisher could be shown to be notable then it could be useful to have a redirect from this title to the publisher's article, as a way of warning editors that publications in the journal are likely unreliable, but the publisher article currently doesn't exist, its inclusion in Beall's list alone is insufficient for notability, and that's an inadequate reason to keep a separate article on the journal. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: No evidence of notability. Article fail WP:NJOURNAL. Obviously non-notable journal. Wikicology ( talk) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete In a case like this, I'd normally suggest a redirect to the publisher, but the publisher isn't notable either. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I couldn't find any evidence that the journal is indexed in selective databases and GScholar shows low citation rates for its papers; the journal fails notability guidelines in WP:NJournals. . The journal is mentioned in Beall's list of predatory journals and is mentioned for rejecting a bogus paper in a sting, but neither of these are in enough depth to satisfy notability thresholds in WP:GNG. The journal's existence is verifiable, but I don't see a good target for a selective merge or redirect. Hence deletion is the best course of action. -- Mark viking ( talk) 20:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Do NOT Delete This Journal exist for several years and publish strong manuscript only after the 2 positive reviews from external reviewers arrived. Journal does not take a fee for the publication and it was recognized in several countries by Ministry of Science. Obviously, it is not tot Journal in Chemistry but it certainly worth to be noted in WIKI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallout dwa ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC) — Fallout dwa ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Please note That Current Chemistry Letters does not have any policy to charge any fees for publishing articles, and international reviewing process is described on it page. So it should not be included in Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallout dwa ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please note that the inclusion on Beall's list is, at this point, the only independent reference to the journal. If it weren't included on that list (which you'll have to take up with Beall himself, not WP), that would just mean that there would be zero independent sources. Whether predatory or not, this journal is very far from becoming notable. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Do NOT Delete Very interesting, new chemistry journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnieszka48 ( talk • contribs) 12:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — Agnieszka48 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Neither being "interesting" nor being "new" makes a subject notable. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- it is only your subjective opinion. wikipedia is guided by a neutral point of view. Wariag ( talk) 09:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Whereas "it is a very interesting journal" is a purely objective NPOV opinion, right? Please have a look at WP:NPOV and compare it with WP:GNG, these two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. j⚛e decker talk 00:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Current Chemistry Letters ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 07:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Do NOT Delete New journal. Indexed by Chemical Abstract, DOAJ, Index-copernicus and many Electronic Journals Libraries in well known universities around the world as well as MNiSzW in Poland. In my opinion you have to give the opportunity to inform about it. wariag
- None of that meets WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. At this point, the only reliable source is an inclusion on a list of predatory publishers, which in and of itself is not enough to make a journal notable either. -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 15:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 15:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 15:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty ( talk) 15:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. It doesn't pass WP:NJournals and in general I think it's a bad idea to have articles on individual predatory open-access journals (there are so many of them and they play an insignificant role in real science). If its publisher could be shown to be notable then it could be useful to have a redirect from this title to the publisher's article, as a way of warning editors that publications in the journal are likely unreliable, but the publisher article currently doesn't exist, its inclusion in Beall's list alone is insufficient for notability, and that's an inadequate reason to keep a separate article on the journal. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: No evidence of notability. Article fail WP:NJOURNAL. Obviously non-notable journal. Wikicology ( talk) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete In a case like this, I'd normally suggest a redirect to the publisher, but the publisher isn't notable either. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I couldn't find any evidence that the journal is indexed in selective databases and GScholar shows low citation rates for its papers; the journal fails notability guidelines in WP:NJournals. . The journal is mentioned in Beall's list of predatory journals and is mentioned for rejecting a bogus paper in a sting, but neither of these are in enough depth to satisfy notability thresholds in WP:GNG. The journal's existence is verifiable, but I don't see a good target for a selective merge or redirect. Hence deletion is the best course of action. -- Mark viking ( talk) 20:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Do NOT Delete This Journal exist for several years and publish strong manuscript only after the 2 positive reviews from external reviewers arrived. Journal does not take a fee for the publication and it was recognized in several countries by Ministry of Science. Obviously, it is not tot Journal in Chemistry but it certainly worth to be noted in WIKI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallout dwa ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC) — Fallout dwa ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Please note That Current Chemistry Letters does not have any policy to charge any fees for publishing articles, and international reviewing process is described on it page. So it should not be included in Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallout dwa ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please note that the inclusion on Beall's list is, at this point, the only independent reference to the journal. If it weren't included on that list (which you'll have to take up with Beall himself, not WP), that would just mean that there would be zero independent sources. Whether predatory or not, this journal is very far from becoming notable. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Do NOT Delete Very interesting, new chemistry journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnieszka48 ( talk • contribs) 12:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — Agnieszka48 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Neither being "interesting" nor being "new" makes a subject notable. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- it is only your subjective opinion. wikipedia is guided by a neutral point of view. Wariag ( talk) 09:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Whereas "it is a very interesting journal" is a purely objective NPOV opinion, right? Please have a look at WP:NPOV and compare it with WP:GNG, these two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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.