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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable journal, no independent references. Article has been speedily deleted four times previously--recommend salting if consensus is to delete. -- Finngall ^talk 17:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Prior deletions were for issues of copyright and promotion, not for notability. The present article does not present those problems. As an open-access journal published by one of the major publishers ( Elsevier) and indexed by the major academic journal indexers, I'd be willing to let this article stay. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 18:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep

"Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal" satisfies the Criteria mentioned in the "Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)". For example, Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal is indexed in SCOPUS. Please see http://www.scopus.com/results/results.url?sort=plf-f&src=s&st1=2001-0370&sid=3B399A6130211F68742EE4D9188827D7.zQKnzAySRvJOZYcdfIziQ%3a30&sot=b&sdt=b&sl=15&s=ISSN%282001-0370%29&origin=searchbasic&txGid=3B399A6130211F68742EE4D9188827D7.zQKnzAySRvJOZYcdfIziQ%3a3 Publications.assistant ( talk) 20:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete the automated redistribution of tables of contents by third parties for financial gain is not in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates ( talk) 08:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Per WP:NJOURNAL:
    • Criteria
      1. The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
    • Notes
      1. The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus. A few simple mentions in passing that "Journal of Foo is an important journal" should not be taken as evidence that Criterion 1 is satisfied.

    Since this journal is indexed in Scopus, that appears to meet the stated criterion. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 14:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Seriously meets the criteria of academic journals. Elsevier and RNCSB are indeed serious. SamuelDay1 ( talk) 09:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Article needs major cleanup (see WP:JWG), but since the journal is indexed in Scopus, it meets WP:NJournals. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep The journal's own figures suggest they had published 130 articles in the 2 years prior to entering into an agreement with Elsevier in June 2014. The journal does also seem to have supported some conferences around the world, for example in Heraklion, Greece June 2013, New Dehli, India June 2014 and a meeting scheduled to be in Hangzhou, China May 2015. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 12:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It's a relatively new journal, but it's from a major publisher and already meets the indexing standards of WP:NJournals. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:39, 18 January 2015 (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.