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 EMBnet.  Sandstein  11:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EMBnet.journal[edit]

EMBnet.journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability: No independent sources, not included in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Article dePRODded by anonymous IP, without explanation. In the absence of sources: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Randykitty started the discussion to delete the entry of EMBnet.Journal. I do not agree that one user alone has the authority to delete an entry related to the journal published by the oldest bioinformatics organisation (est 1988) created by EMBO in the first years of the disciple that today we call Bioinformatics. This journal is following the most strict philosophy of Open Access and strict rules of peer review. To vote for deleting an Open Access journal because it does not pay to Elsevier indexing services is a contradiction in the rules and a contradiction with the Wikipedia philosophy of Open Access. [EMBnet.journal]] has a huge reader community in many continents where Universities cannot afford paying for the expensive subscription methods used by more traditional publishers. I think that Randykitty can be very alone in the opinion of deleting this entry if we take in account the opinion of the big reader community that this journal has. I vote for Keep. Leifuria 14 January 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Leifuria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment Please read WP:AFD: no user alone has the authority to delete an entry, the community will decide. Also note that to be included in databases is free for any qualifying journal, I don't know of any respectable indexing service that charges journals to cover them (this includes Scopus and the Science Citation Index). Things may be different for services that provide access to journals, of course, as they are basically re-sellers. That the journal is published by a possibly notable organization is interesting, but notability is not inherited. Being open access is certainly not justification alone for having an article here (note that there exist nowadays many so-called "predatory" OA journals, trying to make a fast buck; of course I am not implying that this is the case here). If this journal has indeed such a huge reader base, then certainly there exist independent reliable sources that establish notability. If you know of any such sources, please add them to the article and I'll withdraw the nomination. But in the absence of such evidence, I maintain my opinion that this rather new journal is not notable and that, at best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The EMBnet.journal is not a new journal, it has a very long tradition. It is the successor of EMBnet.news magazine, published by EMBnet and which first issue was released in the far 1994. From 1994 to 2009 EMBnet.news published 44 issues giving voice and visibility to the most advanced bioinformatics laboratories in Europe and responding to the need of hundreds of researchers who needed support for both the development of their own bioinformatics infrastructures and best practice in the field. The decision to move forward a peer-reviewed edition was taken in 2009 because of the growing interest in the journal from outside the EMBnet community. Publication in the EMBnet.journal is free of charge and is carried out by few people working for free and hardly in the name of the EMBnet community, which is spread all over the world and that strongly believes in the value of cooperation and collaboration for research advance. The EMBnet.journal has a big community of users who benefit of its publication, the presence or the absence of EMBnet.journal in Wikipedia will not change much in the life and success of the Journal but for sure will change most in the opinion of many people on what is the true meaning of open access and democratic research. I vote for keep. --Domenica999 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I vote for keep. --Domenica999 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Domenica999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep The journals website has more than 17000 visits per year - which is not an irrelevant presenze as a specialised journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrea62 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Andrea62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Howicus (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. For this article to be kept, more sources would need to be found. Howicus (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Howicus and Randykitty, you cannot have deep and/or long knowledge about the European and Global Bioinformatics community. EMBnet.journal is the continuation of EMBnet.news the official journal of EMBnet. In EMBnet.news, a very specialized magazine for informaticians in the field of Biology, many of the first bioinformatics tools and databases were for the first time presented, more notability in the area of Bioinformatics is difficult to achieve. In the 90´s the first articles published around new bioinformatics tools and databases were published on Meeting Proceedings and online systems. EMBnet.news was created to fill in a need in the young bioinformatics community. Most leading bioinformaticians in Europe have published in EMBnet.news: just to give a list: ftp://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/embnet.news/ here you can dig into Bioinformatics History. Some of the most used databases and tools today (EMBL-database (nucleotides), SwissProt (proteins), ClustalW (multiple alignment), EMBOSS (Classic collection of bioinformatics tools)) were once announced in EMBnet.news. I think that some more people will soon provide you with more information, but please take your time and read the issues of the journal (1994-2012) before voting delete. 14 January 2013 Leifuria (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some articles in EMBnet.news are cited more than 400 times, Some examples:

(1997) GeneDoc: analysis and visualization of genetic variation, KB Nicholas, HB Nicholas Jr, DW Deerfield - EMBNET news, 2009 EMBnet.journal as its continuation has already articles cited more than 20 times: Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads, M Martin - EMBnet. journal, 2011 - journal.embnet.org The extensive citation record to EMBnet.news and EMBnet.journal is proof enough of the journals notability and importance for the Life Sciences community. Leifuria (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added a secondary ref from a reliable publisher in the field. The main question in my mind is whether EMBnet.journal is different enough from EMBnet.news to be considered a new journal. If so, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON unless we can find another secondary source. If it isn't a new journal, then EMBnet.news does have a lot of history behind it and secondary sources such as [1] and [2]; in this case, the article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Leifuria, I could now start this comment by saying "you cannot have deep and/or long knowledge about Wikipedia", but don't you think that such would perhaps be counterproductive? Howicus and I are not here to somehow destroy worthy things, we're here to build an encyclopedia (have a look at AGF). And you shouldn't judge people by their pseudonyms here either: for all you know, we're well-established European bioinformaticians... So, to explain WP a bit: "notable" in the WP sense has nothing to do with "worthy", "valuable', "good" or "bad". It simply means that something has been noted. And that has to be established by independent reliable sources. Thus, there is no need to "read the issues of the journal" and arrive at a totally subjective judgment about its contents. Just a few good sources will be sufficient. Whether I, or anybody else, thinks this is an important publication or not is completely immaterial. As for the citation data that you mention: citation analysis is tricky. Even assuming for the moment that EMBnet.journal could inherit its notability from EMBnet.news, a search on the Web of Science (less sensitive to false positives than GS) indicates that only 83 items have been cited one or more times, which is not a very impressive number. On a more general note to the different SPA (single-purpose account) editors popping up here: AFD is not a vote. The outcome of this discussion will not be decided by counting votes but by evaluating policy-based arguments. Hope this explains this process ale to be fou bit and will help you navigate WP. --Randykitty (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The 3 apparent SPAs concern me greatly. Especially as all 3 have suddenly come out of the woodwork after months, or more, of not editing to vote here. The number of visits each year is not evidence for notability. A lot of these so-called "citing articles" don't, on the face of it, appear to have anything to do with this journal, and if they do, they're not all exactly WP:RS. Also, I'm pretty sure that arguing the journal is notable for having notable editors fails WP:INHERIT, as does any links between EMBnet.news and EMBnet.journal. I have not, however, searched for sources myself, and as such, won't vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hi, Lukeno94, I can undertand your concern, but this entry was created 6 months ago without anyone reacting. It was only when one week ago the page started an upgrade to follow the Wikipedia format that Randykitty reacted against. Randykitty started his/her work with Wikipedia articles just two months ago, Howicus history in Wikipedia is mostly related to deletion of pages. Some users are very focused to a few articles of their expertise and do not see themselves as experts in all areas of Wikipedia therefore the activity is related to subjects that are of their expertise, which is good for Wikipedia. Leifuria (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The length of time an article has been at Wikipedia is irrelevant - I've seen articles that are several years old get deleted in their first AfD. Randykitty's (perceived) inexperience is also not a valid reason for arguing against the AfD - 2 months is more than enough to familiarize yourself with the basics of WP:GNG. I've now run a quick Google search myself, and all I can find is a few blog sites, forum posts, direct links and primary sources. Nothing that satisfies GNG, which asks for non-trivial, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Thus, I will vote Merge to EMBnet - outright deletion here is not the right procedure, but this stubby article can easily be included in the main EMBnet article. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Thinking about it, EMBnet.journal is more than just a name change, the publishing model greatly changed as well, so it can't really be thought of as the same journal. EMBnet.journal is verifiable and has at least one secondary reference, as noted in my comment above. While it may fall below threshold for notability, it is a good candidate for merging to EMBnet. As a relatively new journal, this topic has WP:POTENTIAL; anyone recommending delete rather than merge should justify why deletion is necessary, as merge is the preferred action for such topics. Mark viking (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with EMBnet. Article subject doesn't meet WP:NJournals at this time, doesn't appear to be properly indexed by Scopus (searching there throws up two articles, one with 11 citations) or Web of Knowledge Jebus989^✰ 14:24, 18 January 2013 (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.