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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biofuel Research 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)

Please note the extensive discussion on the talk page of the article, where the article creator (Meisam tab, who claims not to be the editor-in-chief of this journal, Meisam Tabatabaei) claims that the journal's inclusion in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) is enough to meet WP:NJournals. However, as far as I can see from ESCI's inclusion criteria, these are similar to those of DOAJ, which also does not contribute to notability. Note that the final paragraph of the introduction to ESCI's criteria states: "The Web of Science Core Collection Journal Selection Process now includes those criteria that Editorial Development applies to journals evaluated and selected (or rejected) for the ESCI. The Journal Selection Process for the central focus of Core Collection, namely, SCIE, SSCI and AHCI, remains fundamentally unchanged and consistent. SCIE, SSCI and AHCI continue to define the highly selective and central focus of Core Collection." (My bolding). Thomson Reuters here clearly makes a distinction between the highly selective databases SCI, SSCI, and AHCI, on the one hand, and ESCI on the other hand. In sum, I maintain that this is relatively new journal is not notable, as it is not indexed in any selective databases and has no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Emerging Sources Citation Index in my opinion does not show notability. It is explicitly and deliberately a "second-tier" index for those journals that do not yet qualify for Science Citation Index. The term we usually use for subjects in that sort of status is "not yet notable". DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not yet notable enough, but maybe in the future. This form of self-promotion needs to stop, and all edits by Meisam Tabatabaei need to be examined due to the obvious COI. We also need to be patient and gentle with an editor who has unwittingly run afoul of our COI policy. They should stick to using the talk pages of any articles they are related to, and not do direct editing on them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Randykitty. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - "not yet" at best, though I would not hold my breath.

If anyone gets confused by the userspace redirects, the author changed his username. A plausible reason is stated here (IMO it stretches credulity, but WP:AGF). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is not a suicide pact. The extreme degree of promotion and knowledge makes believing that there is no COI far beyond any stretch of credulity. New editors need to learn our ways of dealing with such a COI and stick to using the talk page for anything remotely controversial or promotional. If that is followed, there will be less likelihood of future problems. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor said to have close knowledge of Meisam Tabatabaei, so that is an admission of COI. However it might be true that he chose "Meisam Tab" as a username despite being someone else, though it seems unplausible to me. Frankly, who cares anyways? The article will get deleted and that's it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• SNOW Delete as still questionable for the necessary notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 25 April 2016 (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.