Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article created by apparent COI editor (see use of "we" in edit summary). PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator with reason "We are indexed in DOAJ, BASE and EBSCO. Also, we are indexed in minior bases like World Cat or I2R. We received result from preevaluation proces for Scopus base. I can send you their possitive answer. Definitly, we will apply for Scopus in September." DOAJ, BASE, and EBSCO are not selective databases in the sense of NJournals (and WorldCat and I2R even less so). If the journal gets included in Scopus, the article could be recreated but at this point, this is definitely too soon. PROD reason therefore still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not happy with your proposition and of course, I do not agree. Please find in bellow e-mail from Scopus pre-evaluation. If it is necessary, I will send you pfd file with pre-evaluation results. This month we bought doi numbers and that is a reason why we are waiting for September. Also, in 2019 we will apply for Web of Sciences. If you have more information about citation our journal, I will send you results next week.In that results you can see that our journal is cite in a lot of journals indexed in the best bases like WoS or Scopus. In the end, you will decided, but I am sure that our journal will have impact factor in next few years with or withouth wikipedia page.


 * --Nemanja Kasikovic (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm sorry, but a form letter from Scopus that they will consider your journal does not mean anything. If your journal gets included in any selective databases, that's the moment to create this article. At the moment, there's no way of predicting the outcome of that evaluation process. --Randykitty (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with you. In the future, we will be included in Scopus and WoS (it does not matter when, 2017, 2018 or 2020...). In that moment, Wikipedia pages will not be necessary for use, but today is important to have Wikipedia page. With Wikipedia page, other scientific workers can find information about us. --Nemanja Kasikovic (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do not ask what Wikipedia can do for you, but what you can do for Wikipedia. WP is not a place to promote your journal. --Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

--Nemanja Kasikovic (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Thank you very much for everything. I told my opinion and reasons why I think that Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design deserves Wikipedia pages. It's hard to create something out of nothing, especially if you are from a small country like Serbia. As an editor, I am trying to make great journal, and I am sure that I will do that. Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design will be a part of Scopus and WoS base with or without Wikipedia page. This is my last post. The final decision is up to you. All the best.
 * Comment conflict of interest established here. FYI. &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  12:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked you here to not post the contents of someone else's email in public. Please do not do that again. Ina any case, two editors have now told you that doing so is a pointless exercise, as it confers no notability upon your journal.  &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  12:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the orginal PROD; no further notability has been established. &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  12:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Too soon. I see no problems with recreation after the journal gains more renown - being indexed in databases and having a decent citation index will help. — kashmiri  TALK  16:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Too soon to be able to tell .  DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 4 April 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.