Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Proteomics & Bioinformatics

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Proteomics & Bioinformatics

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

Journal of doubtful notability. Website claims it is listed in several databases, but on checking this is often incorrect (for instance, not listed in the Thomson Reuters Master Journal List http://science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/). No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find very little coverage of this publication. By the journal's own admission, they made up their Impact Factor: "Unofficial 2011 Impact Factors were established by dividing the number articles published in 2008,2009,2010 and 2011 were cited in 2011 based on a search of the Google Scholar Citation Index database, by the number of articles published in the previous two years (2008-2011)."; they are not listed by Thomson Reuters. Their ICV is the minimum that Index Copernicus assigns to an indexed journal (and they index very close to everything, so inclusion does not imply notability), representing an impact factor multiplier of zero. SJR has them in the 4th quartile for most of their subject categories. Oddly, it has them in the first quartile for "Computer Science Applications", but that whole list looks a bit dodgy, and the SJR entry for the journal is weird besides, listing them as an American publication rather than an Indian one. Regardless, none of that gets this publication in sight of the WP:NJOURNAL expectations, much less across the line. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This journal was previously tracked by Thomson Reuters, so indexing details should be removed from wiki as well as respective journal page. Un official impact factors publication practice is started by BiomedCentral. We should concentrate on them along with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarscentral (talk • contribs) 16:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Previously?? This is quite a new journal, so what you are saying is that in the 4 years of its existence they have managed first to get accepted by TR and then to get thrown out again? Do you have any source for this assertion? And the "unofficial IFs" of BMC were never reported here either (even though they appeared to be calculated correctly, whereas the text on the OMICS website strongly suggests that they have no clue how an IF is calculated...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 24 October 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- 'doubtful notability' is putting it kindly -- delete per arguments presented by nom and Squeamish. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 31 October 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.