Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current Physical Chemistry


 * 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 15:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Current Physical Chemistry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relatively new journal. Article creation premature. No independent sources (independent sources given in the article have nothing to so with the journal). Not indexed in any major selective database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete on the grounds of evident promotionalism for a journal without much of a record. (e.g. "A number of very interesting articles are available under Open Access that can attest to the high quality of the manuscripts appearing in this relatively new journal" sourced to its table of contents and added by the orig. ed.  after  AfC had accepted a version without that blatant  piece of advertising.). And I am well aware that this OA publisher has been quite determined to get WP articles for each of their journals, though they are most of them still fairly marginal. They would do better to wait until others thought the journals important enough.   (But I note that though Chem Abstracts is not especially selective, it is still the most significant of all chemical indexing services.)  I need to declare some personal involvement here: the publisher has engaged in correspondence with me over an extended period to urge me to help get these journals accepted. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep on grounds on a number of very exciting articles are appearing in this very nice Physical Chemistry journal. As JPC does not accept review articles, CPC is a very nice journal which is now being used by both top European, American, Brazilian, Japanese, and Chinese authors to publish their works, some being purely review articles, and others being a mix. By browsing the content of the articles published to date, and those to be published one can see that CPC is fast becoming a top Physical Chemistry journal. It would be disservice to the scientific community to delete information provided free of charge by the scientific community by volunteers, communtity service to us all. What some people consider advertising, paying to have one's work published, is not actually considered that by others. Note that journals are only as good as the editors and authors who publish in them. The Editor in Chief is at IBM and Columbia University, a top ranked American industrial center and an REU academic research university. I highly doubtt these instititions would allow their research and academic staff to be affiliated with less than top quality scientific endeaveors, especially with the large number of retracted articles which have appeared in both Nature and Science. Competing editors, publishers and others with vested interests appear to be wanting to have this page deleted and to prevent CPC from establishing itself as a top ranked Physical Chemistry journal, which it fast is becoming due to the hard and dilegent work of of both the former and current Editors in Chief, the contributing authors, the diligent referees and of course the staff at Bentham Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.21.180.41 (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If the journal is as wonderful as you say, then very soon there will be reliable sources and listings in selective databases that will show notability. At this point, though, we cannot predict that this will actually happen, so until this time, I don't think an article is justified. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on commen Take the time to read the articles from Peter Hamm's group, Chris A. Kieslich's group, and the abstracts from the forthcoming articles by Ole G. Mouitsen, Rebecca C. Wade, Giuseppe Zacczi, Yuriko Aoki, Martin Gruebele, Feng Long Gu, Feng Wang, Antonio Caliri, Ewan Blanch, Henrik Bohr, etc. at . Again it would be a disservice to the scientific community to delete a page to such nice scientific work. For what reason??? New and innovative science is being published in new and innovative scientific journals and publishing houses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.21.180.41 (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is not up to WP editors to judge the quality or lack thereof of an academic journal (or any other subject, for that matter). We have to go by independent reliable sources in order to establish notability. These wonderful articles that soon will be published will soon have been generating citations convincing databases (perhaps even the JCR) to start covering this journal. Or other sources might even decide to write about this bright newcomer. When that happens, we can write an article, but not now just yet. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as above until such time as notability is proven. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment. "The first issue in 2013" suggests this journal has not even started publishing. The infobox contradicts that. Can someone at least fix this inconsistency? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That was indeed rather ambiguous. I have checked their website and clarified this: they apparently meant that the first issue to be published in 2013, which I assume will be vol. 3) is going to be a special issue dedicated to a single topic. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This comes under WP:NJOURNALS. Criterion 1 says it is considered by reliable sources to be influential. I don't see how this is possible given how new it is, but I checked the "most typical" way of verifying the criterion. It is not listed in the Science Citation Index, but I can't check the other two noted because you need a password. I also can't make various other checks because of similar issues. Criterion 2 says it is frequently cited by reliable sources. It may satisfy this by being "frequently quoted in conventional media as an expert source in a particular area." I don't find a single instance of this for this journal. Criterion 3 says it has a historical purpose or significant history. It's a new journal, so it can't satisfy this. Based on the above, I don't think this meets WP:NJOURNALS. Not finding any significant coverage of the journal itself anywhere on the web, I believe it fails WP:GNG unless offline sources can be found, which is unlikely given its newness. --Batard0 (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.