Reason: Non-notable journal, not indexed in any selective major database, no independent sources, published by the "predatory" Scientific Research Publishing. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable new journal, published by a publisher notable only for its low quality publications. No independent sources, not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable publisher. No independent sources. Just one of many opportunistic outfits looking to make a quick buck riding the coat slips of the OA movement.
Reason: No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major databases. Tagged for notability since June, but no sources have turned up. Does not meet WP:NJournals of WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable journal with a rather amateurish website on a free-hosting service. No independent sources, not included in any databases (let alone major selective databases). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable journal. Only notable feat is thatit is published by a publisher listed on Beall's list of predatory publishers. No independent sources, not listed in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable magazine. Apparently rather new, does not have a regular website (amateurishly produced on a free web hosting service). No independent source, no evidence of any notability. Does not meet WP:GNG.
Reason: Not notable. Academic departments are rarely notable and this one is not an exception. No independent sources, tagged for notability since May 2012.
Reason: Unsourced. English so bad that it is difficult to see what is correct or not. An IL-14 flight from the Soviet Union to Antarctica seems unlikely. That there was a problem explaining the deths of people on board that was solved only 2 years ago (for a crash that allegedly occurred in 1979!) is also unlikely. Possible hoax, fails WP:V.
Reason: Non-notable new journal. Indexed in PubMed, but not in MEDLINE (OA-or hybrid OA- journals get into PubMed through PubMed Central, which is not very selective in its inclusion criteria). Not indexed in any selective database. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable journal from a borderline notable "predatory" publisher. Not included in any selective databases. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: New journal, not a single article published yet. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.
Reason: Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Article creation too soon. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.
Reason: Non-notable journal, no independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Article creation too soon. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable journal. Contrary to what article claims, not included in Science Citation Index (see Thomson Reuters Master Journal List). PubMed indexing trivial (via PubMed Central as an OA journal). Not included in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable journal. Tagged for notability for more than a year without any improvement forthcoming. Only independent source is a one-paragraph mention in a book. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Moribund journal of unclear notability. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Tagged for missing references for 2.5 years with no improvement forthcoming. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Unsourced stub, apparently not notable. No independent sources, not indexed in any major selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Although this organisation calls itself a "university", it is not accredited anywhere, except that it is "accepted" by the "Nevada State Board of Oriental Medicine". This is an obscure organisation that according to their own website have no manned front desk, only a voice message on their phone line. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:ORG.
Reason: New journal, too young to have already become notable. Article creation premature. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.
Reason: Non-notable new journal, article creation premature. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Relatively new journal that has not yet had a chance to become notable; article creation premature. Not included in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.
Reason: No independent sources, not indexed in any selective databases (note that IF given in article is not the usual ISI IF). Does not met WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.
Reason: Author of a bunch of self-published books. Founder of a non-notable website. Holder of a rather silly world record. Does not meet WP:BIO, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major databases. Apparently moribund after only a handful of issues published. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable journal. Has published only a handful of articles (plus some notes and editorials) in its 7-year existence. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.
Reason: Relatively new journal, article creation premature. No independent sources, not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: New journal, too young to have become notable yet (only 1 issue published so far). No independent sources, not included in any selective major indexes. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: No evidence that this concept is notable. Only references are the article in which the expression "visible learning" was used and a very brief item in a newsletter. The external links are to sites promoting Hattie's courses and books.
Reason: Non-notable journal that appeared for a brief period (2008-2010). Not indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.
Reason: New journal, article creation vastly premature. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable journal. Both Bioline and AJOL indicate only 1 issue was ever published. Not indexed in any major selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable new journal established in 2012. Too young to have become notable yet. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Article creation vastly premature. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS.
Reason: Journal was discontinued by Springer and content published by them seems to have disappeared from the Internet. Currently operated by the International Osteoporosis Foundation, but not even tables of contents are visible for non-members. Journal seems to have only an editor-in-chief and a managing editor, but no editorial board, and resembles a blog more than an academic journal (given the statement that opinions expressed in it are those of the editor, not of the foundation...) No independent sources, not indexed in any major selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable new journal with not a single article published yet. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Postdoc having published some articles. However, no independent sources and no indication that this passes WP:ACADEMIC. Article creation premature.
Reason: Relatively young society. Google search gives 26 hits, none of them to independent reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GROUP or WP:GNG. Article creation premature.
Reason: Non-notable new journal. No independent sources (apart from some non-selective indexing services), not indexed by anny selective major database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Note that the journal is not "published" by EBSCO, but by the Association for North East India Studies.
Reason: Non-notable, relatively new journal, article creation premature. No independent sources, not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.
Reason: New journal, has not yet had time to become notable. Article creation vastly premature. No independent references, not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.
Reason: New journal, too young to have become notable yet. Article creation premature. No independent sources (those in the article do not mention this journal and, in fact, even predate it), not covered in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable new journal, too young to have become notable yet. Article creation premature. No independent sources about the journal, not indexed in any selective, major databases. Fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG.
Reason: Article entirely based on primary sources (that partially fail to verify the statements made, for example ref. 6). A Google search does not readily unearth any independent sources about this institute either. Does not meet WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable journal. Not included (any more?) in any selective database, no independent sources. Note that publisher is on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.
Reason: Ephemeral journal. No independent sources apart from blogs (not reliable sources). Not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable journal. Tagged for notability for almost 2 years. Apparently only indexed in PubMed Central, which is not a selective database in the sense of WP:NJournals. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Tagged for notability since 2010, but no sources forthcoming and journal website still displays only the non-selective databases listed here. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.
Reason: Tagged for notability since 2009. No independent sources ("references" are just links to homepages of associated organizations), not indexed in any selective database. does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.
Reason: New journal, with no articles published yet. Journal is published by "Internet Scientific Publications", an alleged predatory open access publisher. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.
Reason: Relatively young journal publishing each year a handful of articles, published by Libertas Academica, which is on Beall's list of predatory OA publishers. Not indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: WP:TOOSOON: Web of Science lists 82 publications for "Boockvar JA", which have been cited 449 times for an h-index of 12. Highest citation counts: 57, 43, 40. In this high-citation density field, this is insufficient to show a significant impact on his field. Does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC.
Reason: New journal, article creation premature. No independent sources, not included in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: New journal, not a single article published yet. Article creation vastly premature. No independent sources, not indicated in any selective major database. Does not meet WP/Njournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Non-notable publisher of open-access journals. Not a single one of their journals currently meets either WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Only claim to notability is being listed on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers (and, apparently, having released a press release voicing support for Wikipedia - see Signpost of this week).
Reason: Unsourced article on magazine of unclear notability. Equivalent article on Chinese WP has no sources either and seems mainly promotional in tone.
Reason: Unsourced article on magazine of unclear notability. Corresponding article on Chinese WP has no sources either (only link to magazine homepage).
Reason: Magazine of unclear notability. Corresponding article on Chinese WP has no sources apart from magazine homepage. The one reference here looks like a press release.
Reason: Non-notable new journal, too young to have become notable yet. article creation premature. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Relatively new magazine, article creation premature. No independent sources (apart from in-passing mentions at a blog post and on Blackbook). Does not meet WP:GNG.
Reason: New journal with not a single article published yet, too young to have become notable. Article creation vastly premature. No independent sources, not included in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: No indication that this concept actually exists (and, indeed, translating articles from the foreign press does not really seem to be a journalism "concept"). Unsourced for over 2 years.
Reason: Non-notable new journal, not a single article published yet. Article creation vastly premature. References do not even mention the journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
Reason: Iranian molecular biologist, editor-in-chief of a non-notable journal (Journal of Cell and Molecular Research). Web of Science lists 50 publications for "Bahrami AR", that have been cited 752 times (h-index = 10). Most of those citations are to articles on which Bahrami is only a minor author (e.g., 4th of 8 authors). Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:PROF.
Reason: New journal, too young to have made an impact yet. Only a handful articles published to date, article creation premature. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.
