Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Philippine Science and Technology

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. (WP:SNOW). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Philippine Science and Technology

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

Non-notable new journal that hasn't published a single item yet. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with reasons given by proposer. There does seem to be an explanatory editorial published online [1]. I also found some coverage of Philippine Science Letters [2] which was was first published in 2008 but as far as I can see never had an impact factor associated with it. I agree that the subject of this article doesn't meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NJournals and WP:TOOSOON. Without any independent evaluation (e.g. a SCImago report) we have nothing to base an article on. Additionally, the article as written looks heavily promotional; this could be cleaned up, but without sources nothing would be left. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While editor-in-chief Padilla-Concepcion is Vice-President of the University of the Philippines and member of the National Academy of Science and Technology, her "Philippine Science Letters" didn't make it to a large-scale success, though relevant in the Philippinian context. Her new project may succeed or fail, but we should wait to see if it is launched at all. Note however that in a country that lags behind U.S. scientific publishing standards, a publication may be of domestic or even regional relevance without having an "impact factor" attached by western referees. --PanchoS (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Also does not pass WP:NJournals. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 12:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not enough time to become notable. No non primary sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2015 (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.