Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Commercial Biotechnology

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2024 January 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Commercial Biotechnology

[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)

Not in the Science Citation Index, per https://mjl.clarivate.com/. Its site is a wordpress page. Made by someone named Thinkbiotech who is a sockpuppet of the journal's website. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Biology. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's in Scopus, in COMPENDEX, and is evaluated in the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals (level 1 journal). Easy pass of WP:NJOURNALS. That its website is powered by wordpress is irrelevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are 30,000 journals in Scopus. Why should there be an article for any of them, rather not just lists? (even then we would recreate the work of indexers). More importantly, I did not find any independent SIGCOV relating to this publication. बिनोद थारू (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know why encyclopedias should have articles about things, see WP:PURPOSE. 30,000 is a fraction of all the journals ever published. By comparison, there are about 30,000 medical journals currently published. Add non-medical journals (physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, botany, engineering, ...), humanities journals (philosophy, arts, political science), law journals, mathematics journals... and I'd be surprised if that was even one tenth of all journals ever published. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's 7 million articles on Wikipedia. I don't believe anyone would want 500,000 of them be stub pages about some academic journal. Question. I was more interested in getting a reply to the second part of my comment. WP:JOURNALCRIT says
It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Independent, third-party sources must exist for every topic that receives its own article on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.").

With that in mind, can you offer some significant coverage about the journal, unassociated with thinkBiotech or Yali Friedman? बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Scopus, Compendex, NRSJ, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are indexers (databases), not third-party reliable sources. They don't qualify for WP:N or WP:SIGCOV. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indexers are by very definition third party reliable sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasoning provided by Headbomb and WP:HEY. --Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG (the only relevant guideline) due to lack of significant, prosaic coverage. See wp:IINFO for why articles can't be based off of indices and databases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Mach61. There is a decided lack of SIGCOV in IRS sources, and as NJOURNALS is merely an essay it does not override the requirement to meet GNG.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequately sourced, and tracking changes of name and publisher is the helpful kind of information that is hard to present in a form other than prose (e.g., tabular). Nor is this one of the rare edge cases where we risk inflating the perceived reliability of a journal that was indexed in the past but has since fallen into disrepute. XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does anything you said here establish notabiility for this journal? Verifiability isn't the issue. Mach61 (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2024 (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.

Journal of Commercial Biotechnology

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.