The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Article was PRODded in main article space with reason "Non-notable new journal, likely predatory. Website lists fake impact factors. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." It was moved to Draft space and de-PRODded by Anachronist with reason "Not ready for main space, and COI editors should submit articles for review in draft space". I don't need a crystal ball to see that there's no chance at all that this rag will get notable anytime soon, probably never. In addition, it's beyond me why anybody would have content on a likely predatory journal even in draft space. Hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 07:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I would say this is WP:TOOSOON to be notable. However, having worked in the scholarly online publishing world, I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't a legitimate journal, as I have seen other open-access journals that are reputable. As examples, larger publishers such as American Society of Hematology or Society for Neuroscience publish open-access journals that charge authors a fee (I know because I built the websites for their open-access journals [1] [2]). That doesn't make them predatory, that's just the business model required for an open-access journal to remain viable. Ad revenue from these isn't sufficient by itself. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 16:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
any crap is admissible in draft space, but I would say that deletion should be used in only the most extreme cases. The usual response to a poor draft should be prompt rejection with a clear indication of the reasons. Once in a while, the result is a text improved enough to become a valid article. Even when that doesn't happen, the result may be an editor who learns to make useful contributions. Exactly what policy-based reason for deletion is being urged here? As per WP:NMFD it can't be lack of notability, as that is not a valid reason to delete a draft. 23:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Article was PRODded in main article space with reason "Non-notable new journal, likely predatory. Website lists fake impact factors. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." It was moved to Draft space and de-PRODded by Anachronist with reason "Not ready for main space, and COI editors should submit articles for review in draft space". I don't need a crystal ball to see that there's no chance at all that this rag will get notable anytime soon, probably never. In addition, it's beyond me why anybody would have content on a likely predatory journal even in draft space. Hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 07:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I would say this is WP:TOOSOON to be notable. However, having worked in the scholarly online publishing world, I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't a legitimate journal, as I have seen other open-access journals that are reputable. As examples, larger publishers such as American Society of Hematology or Society for Neuroscience publish open-access journals that charge authors a fee (I know because I built the websites for their open-access journals [1] [2]). That doesn't make them predatory, that's just the business model required for an open-access journal to remain viable. Ad revenue from these isn't sufficient by itself. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 16:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
any crap is admissible in draft space, but I would say that deletion should be used in only the most extreme cases. The usual response to a poor draft should be prompt rejection with a clear indication of the reasons. Once in a while, the result is a text improved enough to become a valid article. Even when that doesn't happen, the result may be an editor who learns to make useful contributions. Exactly what policy-based reason for deletion is being urged here? As per WP:NMFD it can't be lack of notability, as that is not a valid reason to delete a draft. 23:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)