Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Genetics


 * 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 E-Century Publishing Corporation. The lengthy keep arguments weren't based on policy, and are SPAs. Fences &amp;  Windows  03:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

International Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Genetics

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

No third-party sources to confirm notability of a new journal published by a nonnotable e-publisher. - Altenmann >t 23:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Consider re-establishing later, but this journal does not even exist yet. The first issue is scheduled for publication in January 2010. --MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
 * Delete, and I would suggest by SNOW. It would take truly exceptional circumstances for a journal in the planning stages to be notable. I tend to regard articles like this as possible G11 Speedies for promotional.  DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, G11 I agree with DGG. --Crusio (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Following DGG's argument at the AfD for the publisher: Merge with E-Century_Publishing_Corporation and redirect for now. --Crusio (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep PLEASE! - As a Molecular Epidemiologist I stumbled upon this entry myself recently and the associated Wikipedia entry and I was delighted that finally we were going to have a formal home for our speciality. Until now we didn't, the nearest thing we had was a book dating back to 1993! Also while the first issue is scheduled for a launch in Jan 2010, it is already fully available online and in fairness to the Editors and Publishers, even before an official issue is finalised, all completed articles become immediately available, something which only some but not all journals do but which makes for an excellent rapid dissemination route. I agree with one respondent, there are a number of academic journals out there (publishing for profit too which this doesn't and I believe mitigates against the "promotional" issue raised by one responder) which do not appear to have as high a calibre editorial board or articles from what has already been on offer. I can see no harm in letting this sit for a while and letting it prove its worth since 6 months is actually not a long time in the development of any journal, particularly like this one where it seems that the journal is setting itself up without any significant financial backing and thus is reliant on extra work being put in by the Editors. Indeed, as a serving member of a small number of other Editorial boards I appreciate the difficulty of getting a new journal off the ground from scratch, particularly a broad spectrum one where the Editors-in-Chief usually have never interacted previously yet need to combine and work to a common aim. This already seems to be working very well with the assembly of nearly 100 Editors which is no small achievement, particularly when everyone is already hugely overloaded, they obviously see the merit in the initiative. As far as similarlity to a different WIKI entry on Molecular Epidemiology - I also see no problem there, I imagine the intention was to provide a general article to explain the topic to general readers without the Journal trying to take credit for this too. If the Journal had tried this then some people might have viewed this as disrespectful to the original founders and pioneers of this field and this would may have become an issue. In this context the journal links make sense in directing more interested academic reading. In short, please keep it, I feel our field seriously needed this. Let the journal prove its worth and if in 12 months it has failed to thrive (which would be a pity) then take it down. At the moment the retention of the current entry may serve to help to development of what could be a new leading journal which could facilitate major discoveries in the future - how bad can that be! Wikipedia grew from nothing, this journal is now trying to do the same. In the interim, lecturers and teachers of aspiring molecular epidemiologists now finally have somewhere to direct their students in terms of reading and as a reinforcement of the recognition of their chosen speciality which more established researchers will also embrace. I would humbly ask for some patience on this, time will tell --MunsterExile (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC) — MunsterExile (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep, Reasons: 1. This article is closely related to another outstanding article---Molecular Epidemiology that was contributed by the same user. It has been in Wikipedia for about half a year, and the article seems having been edited/improved by a reputable Wikipedia Editor at the time when it was enclopidiaed. Therefore, it should not be deleted simply because someone who may know nothing about the Science and scientific publication said that this article is not "notable". The high quality work like this should be respected to encourage more high quality contributions like this. 2. Looking into the journal itself, yes, I agree, it has published only the first issue. However, the quality of this issue can easily beat many journals that have existed for many years. It will be easily indexed in PubMed, PMC and other major indexes in my opinion. If we can let this article stay here for almost half a year when it might has no any published papers, why cannot we give it another year while we has clearly seen a great journal is already coming? This will show our respect to the quality scientist/contributor and show the respect to Wikipedia own editors who have been contributing their time and effort in this great cause. If this journal is not indexed in major databases by then, I will fully support to delete. 3. A quick study on the Editorial Board of this journal, I can see that this is one of the greatest group of scientists in the field and they are working on the same cause like most of us here---spreading the Freedom of our human kind knowledge...which should be supported in turn by WikipediaOpenAccessforScience (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Please understand that wikipedia has the rule that importance of a topic must be confirmed by independent reliable sources, see WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:CITE rules. I am happy to believe that this is an important journal, or going to be. But unfortunately we cannot take a word of a wikipedia editor for that. - Altenmann >t 17:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with E-Century_Publishing_Corporation and redirect for now. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:00, 15 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.