Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Quantum Information Science


 * 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 Scientific Research Publishing. Consensus is that this isn't notable. Where to redirect to, and what if anything to merge from the history, can be decided through the editorial process.  Sandstein  08:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Journal of Quantum Information Science

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Re-creation of an article deleted after an uncontested PROD. Non-notable new journal, published by a publisher notable only for its low quality publications. No independent sources, not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong KEEP Delete and redirect Meets WP:JOURNALS . I have adjusted my opinion after being gently swayed by David Eppstein's points below.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, this doesn't meet NJournals. Could you perhaps tell us what your reasoning is? --Randykitty (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Scientific Research Publishing. I see no evidence that this journal is notable, the article creator has a history of promotional edits, and we probably also have a neutrality problem if we either accept this as a legitimate mainstream journal (despite its publisher) or write the truth about its publisher (without sources that address the legitimacy of the journal itself). Nevertheless, its publisher is notable enough, and redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: I did some cleanup and added a few citations to help verify claims.  I believe that it meets the bare minimum of WP:NJournals by being indexed in a couple of Gale databases, and there may be room for this article to grow with time. Phoenixred (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I appreciate Phoenixred"s efforts, none of the databases listed is selective or major, as required by WP:NJournals. Perhaps the journal will grow in time and become notable (if ever the publisher manages to shake off the bad reputation that it has earned itself up till now), but at this point, my crystal ball remains foggy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randykitty (talk • contribs)


 * merge and redirect I'm happy that you found a larger subject to redirect to. However, please read Merge_and_delete.  I am never happy with delete and redirect results.  It puts what was there permanently out of my less-privileged-than-admin reach, and I will never know if it had too little content, is truly non-notable, was notable but deleted anyway, or was not yet notable.    Th e S te ve   01:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on mergeI oppose a "merge and redirect" decision. There are several reasons for this: First, the article as it currently stands has zero information sourced to reliable sources (Ulrich's just lists publisher-provided info), so there is nothing supported by reliable sources here. Second, what goes for this journal, goes for all the other journals from this publisher: are we going to present info on each and every one of their journals (in a neutral way) in the article on the publisher? I already see them opening the bottles of champagne... Third, if the article is not deleted but only replaced by a redirect, we'll have to put that redirect on our watchlists, because given this publishers history of trying to spam WP, we can expect regular attempts to revert the redirect. If there is no redirect, any recreation will pop up on the new article feed and is likely to be picked up by someone. (Of course, this third reason is just an argument of convenience, my first two arguments are the most important ones). --Randykitty (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no opposition to a redirect result with no merge. If there is nothing to merge, it's an editorial decision anyway.  However, if there is a redirect there, I prefer to be able to see the previous article.  Similarly, I have no problem with a delete result.  It's the delete then redirect that I don't like, for various reasons, mostly to do with "regular editor" convenience.   Th e S te ve   22:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Arun K. Pati or similar Stuartyeates (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2012 (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.