Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioinformation

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. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bioinformation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases (ESCI is not selective enough), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded without reason given by an editor using the same name as the journal's editor-in-chief. Other editors added some references. However, library entries or being included in the Emerging Sources Citation Index and PubMed Central does not meet NJournals (and even less GNG). PROD reason therefore still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indexing is done by for profit organizations and or companies. Why should an journal be indexed for sharing data and knowledge? Article 10 is primary and freedom of expression should be upheld. We are disclosing our identity and views. Kangueane (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Can you explain what "article 10" is? And freedom of expression doesn't mean that you can put whatever you like in Wikipedia, that's not how an encyclopedia works. That indexing services are produced by commercial companies is irrelevant. So are most newspapers and we still use them as reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is relevant in knowledge creation. Knowledge creation is not an automated process. Thousands of scientists are involved over decades of hardwork. Ignoring an effort is a loss to knowledge creation. The idea of WP is to share knowledge with a broad spectrum of people from a broad spectrum of people. This is the idea. Your enthusiasm to delete an article by mere bureaucracy is not evolution in knowledge creation. Kangueane (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Correct, but we need sourcing that confirms why this is notable. Bureaucracy is needed to keep the lights on and the wiki running; it doesn't just happen, we need people to do the work so it appears at it does. No rules, this place falls apart. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entries in library catalogues do not constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. The journal is not indexed in any selective databases, per WP:NJOURNALS. There is thus no evidence that this journal meets our notability guidelines on inclusion, and no policy-based reasons have been given for keeping the article. WJ94 (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be more specific instead of making general comments. Kangueane (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The journal has received more than 12000 citations with 2000 plus citations in the last 2 years taken for IF calculation with 1.9 for 2022. Source is JCR CLARIVATE ANALYTICS INC Kangueane (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Reliable source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/480/ Kangueane (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

PubMed Central is not selective, it indexes every OA journal in biomedicine, as well as articles on research financed by the US NIH. Bioinformation has an impact factor because it is included in ESCI, which is not a highly selective database. Finally, once you're more familiar with how things are done here, you'll realize that WJ94's comments are accurate and to-the-point. BTW, Kangueane, please read WP:BLUDGEON. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May be your quite familiar with these terms that humiliates people Kangueane (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Things done here or elsewhere if needed clarity and amendments, it should be adhered to. Kangueane (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Journal fails to meet the notability policies outlined in NJOURNAL and GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria are comprehensive and representative in nature. WP did not choose to name a DB. Kangueane (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please go read WP:BLUDGEON. You are being disruptive. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly make your case in simple terms so that everyone understands. Kangueane (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: A 1.9 citation factor is paltry, we'd need much more coverage of the journal. There is none that I can find, all results are mention of the term itself. Delete for lack of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of journals with impact factor less than 1. This is an endeavour for knowledge creation. WP will be missing in knowledge if all data, information and knowledge is bulldozed out.Note that knowledge is unlimited. Engage a broad spectrum of data. Travel around and see the world from a different perspective. Kangueane (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. We do not have evidence that this journal satisfies the requirements of GNG, which is the only guideline applicable. @Kangueane, if you can find discussion of the journal in reliable, independent, secondary sources you may be able to demonstrate notability.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. Im new to WP. Quite a knowledge debate Kangueane (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am an academic editor among several other editors on the board. Let me also state that the academic editors are not paid but honorary positions for experts in the field. I am also editor for a couple of other journals and never been paid for any of my editing or reviewing services. I can also declare that all the content written by me on this topic is not paid in any form. This is all voluntarily.

Also on the very first day, I created my account on wikipedia, I added all my affiliations and related links.

Let me brief my points here:

1. I am new to wiki editing and therefore not aware how many different tags should I reply to make a point that the journal qualifies all the criteria (WP:JOURNALCRIT and general notability guideline) and deserve a stand-alone page. My other colleagues agreed on this point in a separate thread on Bioinformation talk page .

2. To the best of my knowledge, the journal does not have any dedicated marketing/advertising team and it is run by the scientists, and for the scientists. All the articles are in open-access, peer reviewed and indexed in major indexing services.

3. Anyone who is taking a final call on deletion, please be aware that this is a small publishing house and published quality scientific work. Deleting this page, will give a upper hand only to large publishing houses.

4. Wikipedia has pages for predatory journals (I refrain to name anyone) and not listing a legitimate academic journal will leave a wrong impression.

5. You can check on the journal citation reports (a totally independent and renowned reporting) that this is the only journal from India who ever get indexed/received an impact factor in Mathematical and computational Biology category (My field of expertise). This intrigues me to create this page. All the information added by me on the Bioinformation are verifiable through independent sources. Skdhanda (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2023 (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.