Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Therapy and Regulation


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 13:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Gene Therapy and Regulation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Apparently moribund journal, only 3 volumes published since 2003, no indication of notability besides indexing in Scopus. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals). Deprodded by anonymous IP with reason "Inclusion in Scopus is listed as and example of how to meet Criteriea 1 WP:Notability (academic journals)", but the fact that the journal has only appeared a few times and hasn't appeared since 2007 weighs more heavily to me. Crusio (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails notability guideline. JFW | T@lk  22:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. 26 articles published with the most cited having 8 cites in 5 years... definitely not evidence of an impact on the field. I can't find any mention of the journal in reliable sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I was asked about this journal on my talk page, and in response I added material to the article which demonstrates that it does not even meet the criterion of regular publication, is not indexed in Medline, & is essentially uncited.  I am a little troubled at some of the journals Scopus has been adding, and i shall be inquiring further. I shall also be checking the other journals added by this contributor, all by the same publisher. A quick look shows that about half of them are not remotely notable.    DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 24 December 2009 (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.