Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technology and Innovation


 * 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 merge to National Academy of Inventors. I assume that this is the page that User:DGG is referring to. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Technology and Innovation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable journey fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Although it's not admissible, the editorial board comprises 14 people notable enough to have their own articles on here (university presidents etc); same with a large number of contributors. This makes me think twice about agreeing to delete; aren't there specific databases or something for academic and research journals? WorldCat was not helpful as "Technology and Innovation" is a very generic term. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not too familiar with NJOURNAL. It would be great if User:DGG could take a look. SmartSE (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Merge with the Society  Incompetent press release as submitted. This is in part a peer-reviewed journal, though the article omits to say so & thus omits the most important single fact about the publication.  (The journal publishes both peer-reviewed non-specialized technical content, and non-peer reviewed communications and comment). It also omits such basic  things as the year it started publication,the earlier title (Technology)  and forgot to link to the publishing society. For good measure, the section of what it covers (worded inappropriately as what it solicits manuscripts on)  is a very close paraphrase.    Most of the contents is inappropriate and designed to make an impression. For scientific journals, we publish the names of the editors in chief, we do not publish names of the editorial board and the contributors--the list of such for a major journal would include most or even all of the notable scientists in that field in the world. . When we do include the names of   distinguished people with articles here, we just link to their article here--we never   specific the position or the field. Any journal can easily have a very distinguished board by promising to accept their papers. This particular journal is published as a offshoot or what is basically a very high class academic and industrial lobbying group, and the obvious thing to do is to merge it.   It does not meet the current key standard for peer-reviewed journals of being indexed in a selective indexing service, and we have no specific standards for magazines--circulation data can help with those, but none is given. I note that the ed. is a declared paid editor, but I hope he learns how to do it properly. None of the volunteers here are happy  to have to do the work to fix  things for which he earns the money.  DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge The Worldcat entry is here, and shows that 2 libraries hold it, Library of Congress being one. LaMona (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge Dismal failure of WP:NJournals. Not indexed in any selective database. The editor claims on her user page that she writes better than most editors here, which, I fear, does not reflect positively on her ability to evaluate her own contributions and abilities. --Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge per above clearly fails WP:NJournals.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per no notability standing on its own. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet comment struck. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, delete. This is clearly a promotional page for non-notable journal. My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 26 May 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.