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. postdlf (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Nanostructure in Chemistry[edit]

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

Non-notable journal, no independent sources, not indexed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There's one piece of significant coverage (a few paragraphs). ^King Jakob _C2 11:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
week keep Scirus and Summon by Serial Solutions are all selective databases AFAIK, therefore the journal meets WP:NJOURNALS, IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Scirus, as our article correctly states, is a comprehensive search engine. Serials is very much trying to be comprehensive, too (for both, this makes perfect sense given the services they want to provide). Neither is very selective, they'll include almost any journal claiming to be peer-reviewed. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No results in JSTOR meaning no other major journal article references any articles from it. Might be a case of too soon, only about 3 years old. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, if we delete, we may very well have to recreate this article in a year or so, given that it's under consideration for an impact factor last I heard. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That goes for many AfDs. Anything may become notable some time in the future, but WP is not a crystal ball... --Randykitty (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am still trying to make up my mind.

Also, Headbomb's last comment is based in fact. According to this journal's web site: "SpringerOpen is working closely with Thomson Reuters (ISI) to ensure that citation analysis of articles published in Journal of Nanostructure in Chemistry will be available," (please see comment here).

Pertaining to "Summon by Serial Solutions", this is not really an indexing service that is useful for determining notability. It is actually a tool (an efficient search service?) that is integrated into a local public or college library's services; "allowing users to effectively search and navigate across almost all of the library’s resources" [1]. It looks like an efficient library indexing service, based on what a library or its search engine has on hand. In other words, even after integrating the Summons service it appears to be only relevant to the library's "resources". Summons calls this a "discovery service" and does not even pretend to call it a selective database. If I may extrapolate, even if tens of libraries' resources are connected over a network, as is the case where I live, and seems to be the case with a college that has a certain number of libraries, it seems to be only an effiecient search and navigating tool. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any publisher will try to get TR coverage for their journals, the trick is getting. I wish I had made a notice of this because I can't remember the name now, but a while ago I saw a Springer journal that had folded after only 3-years or so of publication, showing that even established publishers like them produce the occasional dud. So until TR actually accept this journal for coverage, it's not notable as far as I am concerned. --Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NJournals and WP:TOOSOON. The content will not be difficult to re-create if this eventually becomes notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 1 September 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.