Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exosomes and Microvesicles (journal)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exosomes and Microvesicles (journal)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created under old name of journal, which was established in 2013 and has published a handful of articles up to now. Sole claim for notability is that its publisher is on Beall's List. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is it on Beall's list, it makes patently absurd claims like "EXMV was founded in 2013 by ASEMV under the leadership of editor-in-chief Stephen J. Gould". Stephen J. Gould died in 2002 BTW. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Different Stephen J Gould. Still fails to meet WP:NJOURNALS however.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we had an article on its publisher we could leave a redirect there, as a warning to people who want to use this journal as a source. However, we don't; the journal doesn't appear to pass WP:NJournals and the publisher doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG (inclusion on Beall's list isn't enough by itself). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No impact factor, no notability. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: But by the way, User:Headbomb and the rest of you fine WP gentleMEN, I am not an 'it', I am an actual person with actual things to contribute. Did anyone ever consider explaining this to an inexperienced user? Maybe Mr. Randy could have left a real note instead of templating me? I'm sorry I don't meet your highfalutin 98% MALE Wikipedia Editor-Living-In-Mom's-Basement-at-the-age-of-39 standards. I was doing my best. But don't let me upset your Great Work in the GentleMEN's club. Do go back to whatever you guys do in your Wiki-circle. BlackSoxFan2015 (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackSoxFan2015: I am not sure what you think gender has to do with this. Typically editors on Wikipedia use several ways to avoid assigning gender to an editor who has not made their preference known, often using things like the singular 'they'. Others will assume an editor is male unless they say otherwise because a) most are male and b) many females do not wish to identify as such. Whichever, throwing abusive accusations and insults is not the way to participate in the community. I believe this was also mentioned to you on Jimbo's talk page. I am sorry you had a rough introduction to Wikipedia. If you have questions or need help please feel free to ask on my talk page. Whatever you decide though please remember that here we do not attack other editors ad you did above. I would strongly suggest you ~~strike~~ the bulk of your comment above by using <s>text to strike out</s>. Thank you for your understanding and again, I am sorry you had a rough introduction to Wikipedia. Jbh ^Talk 02:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackSoxFan2015: I also am unsure what gender has to do with anything, or where anyone assumed anything about anyone's gender (as if that would even be relevant in the first place). The first "it" in "Not only is it on Beall's list, it makes patently absurd claims like..." clearly refers to E&M being on Beall's list, while the second "it" clearly refers to the article making "absurd claims", which is something I have clearly retracted, since the article mean to refers to a different Stephen J. Gould than the one linked to. There are many issues related to the gender gap on Wikipedia, but a deletion debate concerning a non-notable journal isn't amongst them. I suggest you focus on the arguments, otherwise you'll end up highfaluting yourself into a corner. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you're interested in contributing to academic journal articles on Wikipedia, see Our list of missing journals that are likely notable and our guide on writing journal articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft:InTech and expand to describe more publications about the company, e.g. [1] (based on [2]), until you have enough data to work with. The journal may not be independently notable at this time but the company may be. Meanwhile, please be careful about alleging ad hominem motives - I have seen long-term and extremely productive editors banned over just a few rants tamer than the one above. That may not be fair, may not be considerate of the obstacles women and other minorities face, but I'm telling you how it is here. Don't make yourself an easy target - don't go after someone unless you have a specific comment to cite as evidence and you read it carefully and cite it directly (to the WP:diff) with a clear notion of what you hope to accomplish administratively. Wnt (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The company's claim to notability rest on one post on Retraction Watch. The other source is just a listing in a table. It is also included in Beall's list, but that too is only a listing. That really is not enough to base an article upon and at this point I see no notability for this fake/predatory publisher either. --Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realize the cites I just gave aren't quite enough to make the company notable, and perhaps not even with the cite in the present article thrown in. Had I thought there was enough to support notability, I'd have said "move to InTech." However, there's more about the company out there and I think enough could be found to make it notable. If not, then kick the whole little blurb up a level further (and if you have that few sources it will be little) to predatory publisher or something. Just like with a camera, you have to broaden your aperture until you get enough light to see by. Wnt (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of secondary sources establishing notability. Gamaliel (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to verify notability. Fails GNG and NJOURNAL. I am also very concerned that none of the libraries of any of the editors or editorial board index or have the journal. I checked Worldcat and only 26 libraries have the journal, almost all in Germany. I also checked at Johns Hopkins' (where Stephen Gould is a Professor) Welch Library. This is of concern because it is on Beall's List and it claims such a notable editorial board while having no coverage and no significant presence in University or Medical School Libraries Jbh ^Talk 15:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.