Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biotechnological Research

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biotechnological Research

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

Every reference either only mentions the journal's existence, like in a list, or is in actuality a fradulent impact factor company or predatory publisher. This is just another one of the garbage journals that have been popping up in the last three years. All of the sources cited are either reliable or include significant coverage of the journal, never both. Ashenai (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources establishing notability. Gamaliel (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:NJournals - The nine papers indexed by Google Scholar did not receive any citation and cannot see evidence of the journal being considered a reliable source. Too new a journal to be included at this moment. — TaqPol _talk _contrib 07:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 12:09, 8 September 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.