Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biology Open (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   delete. The keep !voters' main concern seems to be that the article might become notable in the future - the article can, of course, be recreated then (or restored by contacting me). &mdash; Joseph Fox 12:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Biology Open (journal)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

DePRODded by anonymous IP. PROD reason was: "New journal, to be launched later this year. Has not yet had time to become notable, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." Nothing has changed since the dePROD, hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Policy may say we should delete this but common sense says that editors have better things to do than debate, delete then recreate articles. We can afford to wait a few months or a year even and see how this develops. --Kvng (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete until notability is proven. Wikipedia does not have a crystal ball. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete until it has enough of a track record to pass one of the WP:NJournals criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: A non-notable journal that hasn't launched yet. Joe Chill (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per pretty much everything above. When and if the journal meets WP:NJOURNAL, then it can have an article, but not before. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the few times I disagree with Crusio. Considerthe the quality of their other journals, a new journal by Company of Biologists is certain to be notable  DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, essentially per sound analysis by DGG, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 23:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I think open-access journals are fantastic, but this one fails WP:GNG. And WP:NJOURNAL. And there are no independent ghits that I can see. And no issues have yet been published. I would love to !vote "keep", but can't see any arguments for doing so. -- 202.124.72.9 (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, for now at least. It is September already, the journal is to launch this month. My suggestion, let's agree to keep it for and nom can see if anything changes by the end of the month.  I think soon it'll meet WP:NJOURNAL  The Terminator  t  c  15:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Your guess is as good as anybody's, but we should !vote based on policy, not guesses.. --Crusio (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I think that was the only reason we might have kept it, i guess the bottom line is it's not notable today and that's all that matters. The Terminator   p  t  c  15:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * explanation. some authors, playwrights, and other creative professionals are so famous that any a=addition major work of theirs will be notable, ; this is best judged by observing that all of their previous works  have been. This situation is analogous: Some journal publishers are of such a high quality that every one of their journals is notable. There aren't many of them, and they don't include the largest commercial publishers.  I'd say they do include the key professional societies--every American Physical Society   journal is notable, including any new one they should start. Similarly for the American Chemical Society, or Cold Spring Harbor Press. Society of Biologists is also in that rank: they publish 4 journals, each one a leader in its subject. A fifth one will be overwhelmingly likely to be just as important. NPG is partially--a Nature branded journal will be,  one of their other medical journals, not necessarily. I'm uncertain of OUP and CUP. I know it isn't true from Springer or Elsevier, who each publish a lower stratum of non-notable journals. Some things of this sort can be reliably predicted.    DGG ( talk ) 07:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not really convinced. Everybody can make mistakes and it is not unheard of that journals launched by even very reputable publishers fail. In the present case, I agree that this is unlikely. But I cannot say that I know this will not fail and will become a notable journal. At this point, there is hardly any content at all (as there is obviously not much to say about the journal yet). Not much is lost by deleting this stub and if in a few years it has indeed become notable, it will be easy to re-create the article. --Crusio (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete no mentions YET.  may be notable in the future; WP:TOOSOON
 * 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.