Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACS Chemical Neuroscience Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ACS_Chemical_Neuroscience

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator, WP:SNOW Keep Tim Vickers (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACS Chemical Neuroscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Journal has barely started, no issue published yet. Prod removed with explanation on talk page concerning stature of authors and the fact that one published manuscript has been cited (cf. WP:NOTINHERITED). Journal misses all criteria of WP:Notability (academic journals) and a article creation is very premature (cf. WP:NOTCRYSTAL). Crusio (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it is published by the American Chemical Society, it is almost certainly notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, this is rather premature, but it will, as an ACS journal, clearly meet our notability guidelines early in 2010 after a few issues are out. So, week keep, as it is just wasting time, deleting something that will be rewritten in a few weeks. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I removed the prod and I apologize if it was a mistake. I will not comment on the AfD since I contributed to expanding the article (though I did not create it). Thanks also for pointing out the guidelines in WP:Notability (academic journals). I was unaware since from the history it seems to be relatively new. I have two questions relavent to this AfD. Are SCI and Scopus (which are the only scientific databases mentioned in the guideleines) the only acceptable ones per guidelines? Are CAPlus and SciFinder, databases of Chemical Abstracts Service not appropriate or inadequate? I ask (as an aside) because as a chemist by training, there are a number of journals that I refer to that are not indexed in Scopus and this makes me feel a bit inferior. There is also a practical matter; List_of_scientific_journals_in_chemistry starts with a ranking based on Chem Abstracts which I will delete from the article if Chem Abstracts is an irrelevant database for scientific journals. I guess other journals might qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia if they are cited by "reliable sources" and have a "significant" history (which the journal in this AfD CLEARLY does not have). I was planning to work on other articles on journals, however, I request a bit more more clarity on what is a "reliable source" and a "significant history." Thanks so much Antorjal (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chem Abstracts is certainly not an irrelevant database for scientific journals, but this is not the place to discuss that. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow as this journal is indexed by Chem Abstracts. Anyways, no further comments from me. Thanks. Antorjal (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does being a significant editor preclude you from speaking here? Doesn't it do the opposite? - BalthCat (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For some publishers, any new journal can be assumed to be notable. The american Chemical Society is one of them. Similar to well established authors and musicians at the very top rank. in chemistry, they are the very top rank. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The above votes all seem to argue either "it is published by a notable group so it is notable" or "it is published by a notable group so it will become notable". As far as I see, the first argument runs afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED and the second of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Crusio (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obvious choice. It's a peer-reviewed publication from a notable university. It's also a ground-breaking project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions Which university?? And why is being peer-reviewed making it notable? And what's ground-breaking about yet another online journal of which there are already hundreds or even thousands? --Crusio (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Answers I read the links/references, searched it on google, and came to the conclusions I stated there. 1) Vanderbilt University 2)I didn't say that, and I guess it doesn't? 3)That's in the video--available on youtube--describing the publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 12:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry if I appear to be dense, but what has Vanderbilt to do with this journal? It's published by ACS, not Vanderbilt. And what YouTube video are you talking about? (BTW YouTube is not a reliable source. --Crusio (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor-in-chief is at Vanderbilt, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. WP:NOTCRYSTAL can be overdone. As DGG points out, all ACS journals are immensely notable in chemistry and this one will be no different. If it has not already been noted all over the place it soon will be, so, since it is written, it should be kept. It would however have been better if the editors who wrote this article had waited until in 2010. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ACS is the most respectable publisher of chemistry journals. It is almost guaranteeed that this journal will (if not yet) be indexed by ISI and Scopus ASAP, and thus automatically qualify the WP notability criteria. By no means an ACS journal is "just another journal". Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as a publication of the ACS I think it is notable. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: agree, as a publication of the ACS I think it is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination Given the consensus that given the fact that this journal is published by the notable organization ACS and therefore may be expected in the near future to become notable, I withdraw my nomination. --Crusio (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2009 (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.