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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Journal of Energy Challenges and Mechanics

Journal of Energy Challenges and Mechanics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable, somewhat amateurishly-produced relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". Article dePRODded by article creator who on the talk page and in edit summaries claims that this meet NJournals#2 by adding a few citations to some articles published in this journal. However, articles from notable journals will be cited at a minimum hundreds of times, so the handful of citations shown by GScholar does not even come close to meeting NJournals#2. Clearly does not meet NJournals (let alone GNG), hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 22:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete, total fail of WP:NJOURNALS. That individual articles are occasionally cited in other journals is not evidence of notability. This is literally indexed nowhere, see MIAR: 2056-9386. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I'd be fine with merging this to North Sea (publisher), if it existed/was notable. But it doesn't, and is probably unlikely to be notable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep – here is a selection of citations demonstrating that it fulfills C2 of WP:NJournals. User:Randykitty's assertion that an item needs to be cited "at a minimum hundreds of times" in order to be notable appears to be a statement of opinion, as there is no such requirement expressed within WP:NJournals itself. Here is a selection of instances where J Energy Chall Mech has been cited in well-established sources (list is non-exhaustive):

Citations

Energy https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544215005150 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217318649 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544216315468 International Journal of Hydrogen Energy https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319917324035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036031991732791X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319917320207 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319916336540 Journal of Energy Storage https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X1630278X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X16300913 International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583615301705 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583617300658 Ocean Engineering - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029801817307369 Fisheries - http://tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03632415.2017.1276330 Renewable Energy - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148115304511 Reference Module in Materials Science and Materials Engineering - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128035818040054 Surface and Coatings Technology - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0257897216312816 Applied Energy - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191500149X Journal of Microbiological Methods - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167701216303426 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research - http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.iecr.5b02211 Swarm and Evolutionary Computation - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210650215000978 Reliability Engineering & System Safety - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832016308316

I can't argue with the fact that this journal is relatively new, but I would argue that it is notable in part precisely because, despite having only published 13 issues in 4 volumes thus far, it has already been cited numerous times in such major publications.-- Newbiepedian ( talk · contribs · X! · logs) 19:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply

AFAICT, the most highly cited article from this journal has 15 cites, the next one has 4 cites, then two with have 3 cites, and then a dozen or so with 2 or 1 cites. With an h-index of ~2, this is nothing. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Headbomb. On rare occasions, a journal can be notable even before it attracts many citations, if the act of founding it received sufficient coverage in multiple independent sources. That does not appear to apply here. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. put simply, not yet notable-- and , considering that it is essentially a device to publish papers from a single series of non-notable conferences, not likely to ever be. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 3 February 2018 (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.