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 keep.
Missvain (
talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Article has been tagged as maybe not meeting Wikipedia's general notability guideline since January 2013. Nothing has been done since then to establish notaibility. Two years seems long enough to allow it to happen if it's possible.
Ankababel (
talk) 00:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Page wasn't properly templated or listed on a daily log. Now listed for the first time at
today's log page. I have no comment on the nomination itself. --
Finngalltalk 15:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Per first AfD (indexed in Scopus, meets
WP:NJournals). No idea why the notability tag was not removed after that (was clear keep). --
Randykitty (
talk) 15:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. It seems to have an
impact factor so i guess we have to keep it under WP:NJournals. BakerStMD T|
C 21:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment At this point it does not yet have an IF. However, it is included in the Science Citation Index Expanded and will get a 2014 IF (to be published this summer). --
Randykitty (
talk) 21:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep – Per criteria #1 of
WP:JOURNALCRIT. Indexed in Scopus and Science Citation Index Expanded.
NORTH AMERICA1000 23:44, 15 February 2015 (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.