Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biologia

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. RL0919 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biologia

[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)

No indication of notability, the only external source is of the publisher. Notability is not inherited and Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A quick WP:BEFORE check on MIAR shows that this journal is included in several very selective databases, making this a clear pass of WP:NJournals. The article is in a sorry state, but instead of taking this to AfD, the nom would do better to have a look at our journal article writing guide and spend 15 minutes to bring this article up to par. --Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My previous !vote (which I rapidly struck) was due to confusion with another journal with the same title (Biologia (Bratislava), ISSN 0006-3088). This AfD is about the Pakistani journal which, despite a rather long history, does not appear to have been included in any bibliographic/citation index. In-epth reliable sources don't seem to be available either, hence this fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know there was a Slovakian journal with the same title. If the page reaches a no consensus or avoids deletion, which I firmly doubt it will avoid a deletion, the title of the page should be moved. Multi7001 (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bobherry Talk Edits 13:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bobherry Talk Edits 13:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals): it fails to meet the criteria suggested there.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:02, 14 January 2022 (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.