Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antarctica Journal of Mathematics

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. No argument advanced for notability under WP:GNG, WP:NJOURNAL, or for that matter, any other standard. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica Journal of Mathematics

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

Article de-PRODded by article creator without stated reason. PROD reason still stands: "Non-notable journal, does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG". Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This journal is listed in MathSciNet, but without individual reviews of its papers (a strong indication that the MathSciNet editors believe it to fail WP:NJournals #1 — note that mere inclusion in the database means only that it's a mathematics journal, not that it's notable as such) and there are no citations to its papers from other papers in the database (a strong indication that it fails #2). Similarly Google scholar lists only 30 of its papers, most with no citations and with at most 6 citations for any of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the "official web site," this appears to be some kind of joke. Citations to its papers on GS seem to be mostly self-citations. Certainly WP:NJournals is not remotely satisfied. -- 202.124.74.240 (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, but also if it's not a joke the official web site suggests it's well outside the norms of what would pass for a peer reviewed journal.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more into the issue, it seems to not be a joke (though it's based in Andhra Pradesh, not Antarctica). But it's well below the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia, so delete. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Qwfp (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a joke, but also not notable for anything other than the silly title. --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It rates a mention on the "math fail" blog, but I don't think that helps WP:N at all. -- 202.124.74.200 (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you go to their buy an article page, you'll see that they claim an association with other journals, such as the Archimedes and Diophantus Journals of Mathematics. While I respect CRGreathouse's looking, I'm going to have a hard time believing that this isn't a joke. Nyttend (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really, it's not a joke. It's one of a number of recent India-based publishers looking to make a profit somewhere in the range between low-quality journal and vanity press; they send marketing e-mails to (as far as I can tell) everyone with an @math.mit.edu e-mail address from time to time. They just have a more creative naming scheme than e.g. Pushpa press. --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax website with no articles, fishing for contact details from the unwary. No such ISSN number found on OCLC search. See also identical article Archimedes Journal of Mathematics: that's the Archimedes "journal" that they're associated with. Scopecreep (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2012 (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.