Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Materials Horizons


 * 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. Userfication available on request. Shii (tock) 05:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Materials Horizons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable new journal. For those wanting to argue that it is published by a notable society, please see WP:NOTINHERITED. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, and note that the JISC citation is from an independent, reliable source. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortuantely, if I click that link, I don't see anything. In any case, a press release (what this seems to be judging from the nature of the website) does not contribute to notability. --Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a press release. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  16:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:TOOSOON, neither well-established enough nor sufficiently covered by independent and selective indexes to pass WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've updated this article to include all current indexing sources that are known (this probably requires a tidy). The journal is currently awaiting inclusion in the Science Citation Index, but being indexed requires time, so perhaps I was premature in creating this page. I appreciate that you wish to keep standards in line with WP:NJournals. One hopes this is sufficient information? DrJWoolf (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for your efforts, but unfortunately I don't think that any of these indexes is sufficiently selective in the sense of NJournals. Given that this is published by a reputable society, there is a good chance that this will survive and be accepted in selective databases. However, "a good chance" is by far not certainty (I have links on my userpage to some journals started by reputable publishers that failed after a few years). Indeed too soon, I think. I would recommend that you copy the article to your computer and re-create it if it gets indexed in MEDLINE, SCI, or similar. --Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll accept this. However, I will recreate this page once Materials Horizons is indexed in SCI, which is due to happen in the near future. At that point, I will expect the new version of this page to hopefully not be deleted. DrJWoolf (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Absoltely: inclusion in the SCI really is definite proof of notability for a journal. Even if the journal would subsequently fail a few years from now (which, of course, I hope won't be the case, that goes wihout saying), the journal would remain notable based on that (as notability is an absolute thing and not temporary). --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: New journal but supported by adequate sourcing to establish notability.   Montanabw (talk)  20:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would greatly appreciate if you could tell me which sources you think are sufficient to establish notability. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The notability standards in use for journals are some of the lowest that Wikipedia has for allowing anything to have a Wikipedia article. I think it is established that this article is not meeting those standards and that no one has provided evidence that it does. This can be userfied to 's personal space if they want to keep this article anticipating the journal's future indexing.   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:21, 23 January 2015 (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.