Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microbial Genomics (journal)

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 redirect to Microbiology Society. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 15:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microbial Genomics (journal)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator without reason given, but after adding indexing in PubMed Central. PMC includes all OA journals in its subject area (excluding only the most egregious predatory ones) and is not a selective database in the sense of NJournals. Therefore, PROD reason still stands, article creation too soon. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This journal has been created by the learned society the Microbiology Society, a charity that support the advancement of the subject of microbiology and is certainly not a predatory journal as Randykitty is suggesting. Gavin Thomas

Comment I am sorry for not being clearer, but if you read my comments again, I do in no way suggest, nor did I intend to suggest, that this is a predatory journal. I only wanted to say that the only journals that PMC excludes are predatory ones, meaning that inclusion in PMC is basically automatic for any good-faith journal, so that PMC cannot be considered a selective database in the sense of NJournals. Hope this clarifies. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Thomas Apologies, I misread excluded for included.
Keep: A variety of external sources now added that refer to science published in the journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GavinThomas (talk • contribs) 14:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that addition was WP:SYNTH. You need a source where the journal is the subject and indicates what types of things have appeared, not present a synthesis based on individual papers that happen to have been published there being representative of the journal's offerings. Agricolae (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so can you tell me why MBio's page is OK, for example. The sources it uses are either to articles on the publisher's own WWW pages or other ASM journals, links to the WWW sites of the editors, generic articles about open access (that are not specific to the journal), or links to papers published in the journals. I have been told by various people now that none of these are sufficient for Microbial Genetics. Given that a scientific journal can only be known for the articles it publishes, I can't see how any other metric than how important the papers it actually publishes can be relevant. Sorry, I'm slowly losing the will to keep on with this...GavinThomas

What makes you think MBio is OK? - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is not like the joke about the bear, where you just have to not be the slowest runner. Your basis for determining notability is how it stacks up to Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), not how it stacks up to MBio. Also, many of your cites came directly or indirectly from university publicity offices, which are inherently biased when characterizing the importance of the work of their people. Still, the bigger problem is that Wikipedia editors shouldn't do their own synthesis. We don't describe a forest based on individual trees that we find, we have to find a description of the forest that we then summarize. The journal itself needs to have been interesting enough for someone to have directly commented on it, not just on a paper that happened to be published in it. If you can find someone saying that 'Microbial Genomics has published some important studies on X', that it what we are after, not 'this important study on X appeared in the journal Microbial Genomics'. Agricolae (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for being so clear Agricolae. Maybe I'll try again in a few years when this material is out there or more quickly when the journal is listed in Scopus (a selective abstracting service, which alone seems to fulfil the notability criteria). Given I am the only voice for keep, then it looks like its for the chop. GavinThomas —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indications of journal notability, is new, and lacks selective indexing as mentioned previously. Most of the sources used are just publications from the journal itself. It may fulfill WP:JOURNALCRIT someday, but it's not ready for an article now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All publications of major learned societes like the American Society for Microbiology or the Microbiology Society are clearly relevant.--Erykah Badu (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please base your !vote in policy, not your personal opinion. Also, please refrain from using insulting edit summaries. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just blocked this editor as a likely impersonation of Erykah Badu. --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RK. This completely fails WP:NJOURNALS. Merging to Microbiology Society would be much better however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - it seems obvious from the discussion that the sourcing doesn not exist to support this being notable. Agricolae (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind - Redirect to Microbiology Society as others have suggested. Agricolae (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Microbiology Society. WP:TOOSOON. It is not the main journal of the Society - that is, of course, Microbiology. St Anselm (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Microbiology Society. I'm pretty sure that this journal is bound to get popular in the next couple of years. (It will also most likely be indexed in the 2016 Journal Citation Reports to be released in June/July 2017.) But alas, we're not a crystal ball, and thus we'll have to wait until this journal is listed in at least some major databases. WP:TOOSOON. — Stringy Acid (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Microbiology Society. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2017 (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.