Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Biosemiotics


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 03:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Biosemiotics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

(Expired) PROD removed by anonymous IP without reason given. PROD reason wes "Ephemeral journal with only two published issues, no evidence that either one (or both together) made any impact. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." No evidence of notability has been added since article was prodded, hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per discussion following my earlier struck-out comment. Merge to Biosemiotics (journal) (even though that one has its own deletion proposal too). There isn't much content in either article, and Google Scholar shows this journal being cited many times by other journals. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note those are two different journals by two different publishers. This is not at all uncommon for scientific publications.  Compare Journal of Physiology and Physiology, for a more well known example. -Selket Talk 23:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Selket that merging is not appropriate here. It's like merging the bios of two different persons because they happen to have the same name. --Crusio (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I was going by the sentence in the article "The journal has been replaced by Biosemiotics", leading me to think that there was a predecessor-successor relationship. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not been able to find anything upon which that phrase is based. Same for the special "volumes" (probably "issues") that are mentioned. As far as I can see, what the original author wanted to say is that there was a development in the field towards publishing special issues and then a failed attempt to publish a journal, until finally Biosemiotics was established. Note that the latter is published by a well-respected academic publisher, whereas the publisher here, Nova, is controversial. --Crusio (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;I'm seeing this journal being cited in other works, which to me indicates at least some measure of notability.&mdash;RJH (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The Web of Science lists citations to 19 articles. The highest count is 7, most have just 1. The would be very far from establishing notability for the bio of a single academic, for a journal it is negligible and these low numbers of citations actually confirm the lack of impact of this short-lived journal (no mystery here why the publisher discontinued it...). --Crusio (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Scholarly journal. Fotaun (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment With all the sympathy that I have for the sentiments expressed in Scholarly journal, it should be noted that this is just an essay, not a guideline. The current journal has published only two issues, which have been cited only rarely. They were published by a controversial publisher. I really think a clearer motivation to "keep" is needed than this essay. --Crusio (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, should I defer to your apparent expertise in the matter? Fotaun (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if my arguments convince you :-) --Crusio (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I find the low citation counts discussed so far highly unconvincing and they're the only evidence of notability we have. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indeed it has very low citation count for a journal, below that of notable individuals, never mind journals. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2011 (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.