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. T. Canens (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biosemiotics (journal)[edit]

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

publication of questionable notability, unreferenced WuhWuzDat 18:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The journal is Abstracted/Indexed in: Academic OneFile, Expanded Academic, Google Scholar, OCLC, SCOPUS, Summon by Serial Solutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.160.126 (talk • contribs)

Source added. --Dr Oldekop (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep since this journal and its predecessor (which has its own deletion proposal) seem to have sufficient citations from other journals (see note from IP above). Mainstream media is unlikely to cover such journals, so it's hard to gauge notability that way. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the Web of Science, 38 articles from Biosemiotics are cited, one 4 times, three 3 times, seven 2 times, the rest just one time. That would not even be enough to establish notability for a single academic bio, let alone for an academic journal. And being listed in Google Scholar and such is no distinction, as they strive to cover everything without exception. --Crusio (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Scholarly journal. Fotaun (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find the low citation counts discussed above highly unconvincing as evidence of notability and they're the only evidence we have. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Crusio and David Eppstein. Extremely low citation count for a journal. I see that both this and the other journal in this rather new (or perhaps rather small) field are already mentioned at Biosemiotics#History, which seems to be sufficient wiki coverage for now. I'm not convinced that the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies deserves an article either, but I don't feel very deletionist today. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2011 (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.