The result was delete. This AfD has been running for 19 days, with nothing in the way of new arguments, or even new participants, since I relisted it for the second time. So rather than keep it open and waste more of editors' time, I'm closing it now, as the result is unlikely to change with yet another relist.
As I mentioned in my last relisting note, the WP:NJOURNALS essay has never attained guideline status, as its criteria are seen to be too permissive, although it is considered by many to be our current best practices guidance. It is generally agreed that failure to meet either NJOURNALS or GNG is sufficient grounds for deletion.
As some here noted, citations are the currency in academia. And indeed, we use this metric to determine the notability of researchers. We do not, however, use citations of a paper to establish the notability of the journal in which it was published. NJOURNALS Criterion #2 refers to citing the journal, not the journal appearing as part of a citation for a paper published there.
Some here lamented the fact that journals in niche fields are unlikely to meet our notability guidelines. That is intentional, not an oversight. The vast majority of scientific journals are not, as a topic, encyclopedic, even if they are the leading publication in their field.
As for indexing, while its importance is diminished in the era of Google Scholar and ResearchGate, it still serves as prima facie evidence of acceptance by mainstream academia. And while the absence of indexing is not by itself sufficient reason to delete an article about a journal, when combined with the paucity of sources covering the journal (as opposed to merely referencing papers in it), this suggests the journal fails to meet our notability criteria, as skillfully argued by the Delete side here.
In summary, even if we accept NJOURNALS as best practices guidance, consensus among policy and guidelines-based views here is to delete the article. Owen× ☎ 09:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)