Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Commercial Biotechnology (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  10:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Journal of Commercial Biotechnology
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This was recently listed at AfD and then DRV where an immediate relist was permitted. Discussion can be found at User talk:Randykitty in two sections.

My basic issue is that A) we have no meaningful coverage B) I can't find much of anything to indicate that the editor-in-chief even exists (he shares a name with a world-renown economist which confuses things but I can't find anything at his school that lists him as existing). The folks I randomly looked for on the board don't exist at their home schools (and even if those are just typos, *that* seems troubling). In general, I don't think we have enough evidence to believe this is a real journal with actual peer review, let alone something that clears the our inclusion guidelines. The folks abstracting it and indexing it aren't evidence of notability per WP:ROUTINE if nothing else. It exists isn't a reason for us to have an article even for something as important as an academic journal. Hobit (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Academic journals, Biology,  and Technology. Hobit (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep again, for the seem reason as the per previous discussion. The EiC clearly exists and has published many papers e.g., , and personal incredulity is not an argument. Likewise that a 30-year journal has possibly gone to shit after being sold / reorganizing is not an argument against its notability either. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If it was once something notable and isn't now, I'm fine with keeping it. Do you have sources to support that? I can't find any non-trivial coverage and none really came up in the last AfD or DRV.  Hobit (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. The prevalence of multiple people with unverifiable affiliations on the journal's editorial board is troubling. Its editor-in-chief, supposedly Xiaokai Yang of the University of Economics in Katowice (but with a Google Scholar profile listing only the more-famous XY's publications and with an email in Hainan), is not the only one with a more-famous namesake; others include Peter Marra, supposedly of the University of Vienna. There also seems to be some nexus among these names+affiliations and two other journals, Archives of Clinical Psychology and European Journal for Philosophy of Religion (despite the unrelatedness of these three topic names) for instance the Vienna Marra is on the editorial boards of both JCB and EJPR, as is the supposed Leonie Levin of TUM whose only evidence of existence is these boards and one publication each in JCB and ACP. While the editorial board of ACP looks cleaner, multiple supposed members of the editorial board of JCB have published there. For this reason I am not convinced that Headbomb's links to papers in one of these journals give evidence for the EiC having a legitimate affiliation. If this was once a legitimate journal, I am skeptical that it remains one, and if we cannot properly source an accurate description of its current state, perhaps the better outcome would be to not have an article on it. I don't mind having articles on bad journals if we can properly source and describe them, but we should not have articles that make no-longer-legitimate journals look still-legitimate for lack of sourcing of their current state. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, our article on European Journal for Philosophy of Religion does lament its fallen state, but without sources. Perhaps that article should also come under scrutiny. I am sympathetic to the goal of warning both journal authors and Wikipedia editors about a good-turned-bad journal but we can only do that with reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and David Eppstein, there isn't enough coverage to be able to summarize anything, without an ability to summarize there is an inability to create encyclopedic content, an article that is only justified by indexer data fails WP:NOTDIR, and is not an article, it's a listing, and we publish articles not listings. Fails WP:GNG, non-notable subject. As an organization (a group of people in charge of the for-profic academic publication) and a product (the publication) this would also need to pass WP:NCORP requirements which are stricter than GNG.—Alalch E. 18:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of meeting GNG, and the potential that this is a hijacked journal just makes it all the more clear why NJOURNALS is not an acceptable set of criteria.
 * JoelleJay (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. Appears to have become a predatory journal based on the evidence and this discussion. I would rather delete this article than promote it as legitimate on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2024 (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.