Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Basic and Applied Physics


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Journal of Basic and Applied Physics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was created by a WP:SPA - in fact, creating this article was their sole edit. Amazingly, they "forgot" to mention that the publisher is listed by Beall as predatory. Not in Thomson ISI, not in JIF, not in DOAJ. Not in any way notable. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I suppose that a fraudulent journal could attain notability by being widely discussed as such, but this is nowhere near that level. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, basically per the same reasoning as WP:FRINGE: Without sources discussing the predatory nature of this journal we have no way to write a properly WP:NPOV article. If we had an article on the publisher we could redirect there, but we don't. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The following articles cite this journal btw: Prime number theorem, Taylor's law Tweedie distribution. It would also be more accurate to say that this was created by the journal's editor (hello massive COI here). In any case, delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: this article is literally two short sentences, one external link, and a short table to make it appear better. Along with that, the article if you could even call it that, has four major issues tagged at the top which in my opinion constitutes deletion alone. definitely not WP:N and seems to be advertising somewhat, further more this information can all be found on the official website which not surprisingly was the one source for this article.Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Regarding the nominator's statement that "the publisher is listed by Beall as predatory," here is support for that statement: The publisher listed in the wp article is World Academic Publishing, and that organization is listed as a predatory publisher here and here. -- econterms (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2017 (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.