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

Should be a section in the Molecular Frontiers Foundation, as it is not notable enough to have a page on it's own. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Molecular Frontiers Foundation per what Adotchar stated. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeIt is factually inaccurate to merge the Molecular Frontiers Journal to the Molecular Frontiers Foundation page as they are separate entities although there are some linkage when the Journal first started. The two pages can have some form of linkage but not one as the subsection of the other. The journal title just happened to share the same term "Molecular Frontiers" doesn't mean it is a journal published by the Foundation and in fact, it is not, especially in the legal point of view. To reveal some of the history on the conception of the journal, many open access journals and topics were discussed between Prof. Bengt Norden and World Scientific Publishing. It just happened that "Molecular Frontiers" was the favourite and familiar term because of various reasons and it was decided to use it to kick start the whole idea. Putting the Journal as a section in the Molecular Frontiers Foundation will mislead readers and might cause unnecessary problems among all the parties involved and hinder the development of the Journal and future development of other ideas that were discussed. It is important that Wikipedia provides the facts rather than based on assumptions because of certain similarities. If one thinks that Molecular Frontiers Journal by itself is not notable enough to have a page on it's own, it should be taken out all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwlee531 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the above, I think this article should be deleted as it has not yet established notability. Maybe in the future it will and it can be restored. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely fails WP:NJOURNALS. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Not against a merge, however.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since it's verifiable. But only no independent sources to warrant a standalone page. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]