Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community. Shortcut WP:NJOURNALSWP:NJOURNALS...
Click to read more »Note 1 in WP:NJournals#Notes and examples is satisfied and thus criterion 1 in WP:NJournals#Criteria is satisfied, and thus WP:NJournals is satisfied...
Click to read more »WP:NJournals. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Upon further consideration, I have concluded that this article passes WP:NJournals;...
Click to read more »WP:NJournals. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Upon further consideration, I have concluded that this article passes WP:NJournals;...
Click to read more »misreading of NJournals#3. Randykitty (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Keep. The Wiki Page needs to stay. 1. It meets criteria of WP:NJournals it is indeed...
Click to read more »Keep per RK. Clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC) Speedy Keep Pass WP:NJournals Owlf 📪 13:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)...
Click to read more »independent references listed are just in-passing mentions. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »(Help!) 11:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Keep. I'm not sure if this fails WP:NJOURNALS, which explains that "[t]he most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1...
Click to read more »WP:NJournals. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Upon further consideration, I have concluded that this article passes WP:NJournals;...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete, fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Comment Firstly, I note that WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, not a policy...
Click to read more »in the article Per WP:NJournals - criterion 1 and 2 met by information in above-mentioned information, so does meet WP:NJournals requirements. Unfortunately...
Click to read more »No argument or evidence advanced that the article meets WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS j⚛e deckertalk 20:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC) UBC International Law Journal...
Click to read more »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...
Click to read more »WP:NJournals. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Upon further consideration, I have concluded that this article passes WP:NJournals;...
Click to read more »WP:NJournals. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Upon further consideration, I have concluded that this article passes WP:NJournals;...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. ~ Nanosci (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »15:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Keep meets WP:NJournals DeVerm (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Keep clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics...
Click to read more »selective in the sense of WP:NJournals, so inclusion in them does not establish notability and this still fails NJournals#C1. --Randykitty (talk) 11:27...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by SPA after adding promotional stuff (also...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator, who added a phrase that...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete. Clear fail of WP:NJournals. -- 101.117.89.21 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Comment. (1) NJournals is not an SNG. (2) Deleting this...
Click to read more »indexed any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator with reason "It is a notable...
Click to read more »database, making this a fail of WP:NJournals. As the nom indicates, no in-depth sources, so this also fails WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 09:13, 9 December...
Click to read more »sources" (NJournals#2) and as I have shown above, it is not "considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area" (NJournals#1). It's...
Click to read more »notability per the criteria in WP:NJournals. --Mark viking (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Keep. Satisfies NJournals. James500 (talk) 17:21, 21 November...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Indexed pretty much nowhere, fails WP:NJOURNALS Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC) Possibly move to "Draft"...
Click to read more »creator/maintainer has inadequate understanding of journal notability guidelines (WP:NJournals); attempts to request proof of notability were rejected with simplistic...
Click to read more »don't believe that it qualifies under any of the criteria outlined at WP:NJournals. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator after adding a statement to the...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »Science Citation Index Expanded and SCOPUS and has an impact factor; per WP:NJournals, the journal thus satisfies criterion 1: The journal is considered by...
Click to read more »please note that WP:NJournals takes precedence over WP:N. And since the article satisfies the third criterion of WP:NJournals, the following provision...
Click to read more »Does not pass WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Delete Non-notable by standards of WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Also...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded because of a recent edit by article creator...
Click to read more »Randykitty. Passes WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Keep passes NJOURNALS - it is in "Scopus source...
Click to read more »references for 2.5 years with no improvement forthcoming. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Delete A search...
Click to read more »Hence, it fails WP:NJournals. ~ Nanosci (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC) The journal corresponds Criterion 2 2b) of WP:NJournals: finding citations to...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "I agree that the article has...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by anonymous IP without reason given. PROD...
Click to read more »sources, not listed in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Relisted to generate...
Click to read more »GNG) or indexing in a selective database (needed for NJournals; note that not both GNG and NJournals need to be met, either one is sufficient). --Randykitty...
Click to read more »not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Delete — fails WP:GNG and WP:NJournals, as outlined in the...
Click to read more »the sources currently on the page contribute to WP:GNG. WP:NJOURNALS is a wp:essay. NJOURNAL alsosays "If an academic journal cannot be demonstrated to...
Click to read more »wasn't sure about NJournals either, that's why I didn't include it in the nom. As you say, doesn't meet GNG (and even if NJournals would apply, doesn't...
Click to read more »to WP:NJOURNALS. Whoever Ivoted that it is selective before didn't understand selective according to standards set by Wikipedia and NJOURNALS. Hence...
Click to read more »Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Delete May pass WP:NJOURNALS one day, but that day is not...
Click to read more »selective databases, cannot find any independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »2021 (UTC) Delete Does not meet WP:NJOURNALS --Whiteguru (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Delete. Misses NJournals and GNG. Sounds predatory, but not...
Click to read more »newsletter. No independent sources, not indexed anywhere. Not sure WP:NJournals applies, but in any case it isn't met. Also fails WP:GNG. (Apologies:...
Click to read more »highly-selective databases. NJournals explains why such inclusion is significant coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC) NJournals does not explain...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODed by article creator because the journal "has been...
Click to read more »of significant coverage, which is required by both WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. As for WP:NJournals#C3 historic purpose or a significant history, no one in...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC) I would rather...
Click to read more »Reuters, like the Social Sciences Citation Index, which is listed under WP:NJOURNALS criterion 1. I'm not completely sure though, so, @Randykitty:, could I...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Indexing nowhere selective. Fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »University. There's less discussion that I'd like of Umimak's sources; NJOURNALS doesn't need to be met if GNG is. However, absent any other support for...
Click to read more »independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." While I agree that on its face value, this seems to fail WP:NJOURNALS, there was a lot of (possibly...
Click to read more »meets the criteria in WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. Your idea that we should conflate academics and WP:GNG and WP:NJournals is inappropriate because the standards...
Click to read more »this article doesn't meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete per WP:NJournals and WP:TOOSOON. Without any...
Click to read more »journal, not indexed in any major, selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded with justification "removing proposal for deletion...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NJOURNALS, with all the sources being taken from the journal except one which does...
Click to read more »Gabriel.eichsteller (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Gabe Delete Fails WP:NJournals decisively, as well as WP:GNG. No independent sources. Not included in...
Click to read more »about it). Fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Delete - Agree. Doesn't pass WP:NJOURNALS. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk...
Click to read more »journal. No selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON". Article dePRODded by article creator without specific...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) This is a legitimate journal but not an impactful one per WP:NJOURNALS. It is ranked in the bottom quartile of economics journals by impact factor...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)...
Click to read more »included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals". In the absence of any evidence of notability: Delete. Guillaume2303...
Click to read more »included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Delete. As far as I can see...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »http://science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/). No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Delete --...
Click to read more »sources, not indexed in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Relisted to generate...
Click to read more »evidence of passing WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Redirect As said above, doesn't meet WP:NJournals, but a redirect does...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded after a reference showing an in-passing mention...
Click to read more »sources, not indexed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »http://science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/). No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Delete --...
Click to read more »major selective database in the field, ATLA, which is a keep under WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC) Keep Nothing has changed...
Click to read more »the only real notability guideline for journal notability is WP:GNG (WP:NJournals is suggestive but not definitive), and no in-depth independently published...
Click to read more »criteria clearly indicate that this is not selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. The article also contains claims that the journal is affiliated with...
Click to read more »should only be created (even if they are listed here) if they meet WP:NJournals and/or WP:GNG. This list grew out of a discussion where it was felt that...
Click to read more »this journal does not meet NJournals#2. A handful of references to articles in the journal are to be expected. When NJournals#2 talks about "frequently...
Click to read more »have added that info, with reference, to the article), which meets WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Keep per RK. Headbomb...
Click to read more »satisfies criterion #2 of WP:NJournals. Therefore, this journal meets the requirements for inclusion according WP:NJOURNALS. Criterion #1 is not the only...
Click to read more »2017 (UTC) Keep - easily passes WP:NJOURNALS. StAnselm (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Keep Easy pass of NJournals. I have removed the reference to the...
Click to read more »http://science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/). No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Delete --...
Click to read more »NJournals in a while, although I regularly invoke it for PROD or AFD of articles on non-notable academic journals. I'm pretty certain that NJournals used...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) Indexed nowhere selective. No independent sources. Fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Do NOT Delete...
Click to read more »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)...
Click to read more »is no consensus that meeting NJOURNALS establishes notability. Per MaterialsPsych, establishing consensus for NJOURNALS is beyond the scope of an AfD...
Click to read more »not indicate any coverage). No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Delete --...
Click to read more »http://science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/). No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Delete --...
Click to read more »independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by anonymous IP with reason "challenging...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODed by article creator (Gleaman: note that the...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC) The deletion...
Click to read more »Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC) Delete as non-notable per both WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. Crusio pretty much...
Click to read more »only the non-selective databases listed here. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »database. Tagged for notability since 2010. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »not a selective database in the sense of WP:NJournals. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. I'm not saying I agree or disagree...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded without reason given after addition of some...
Click to read more »April 2016 (UTC) Keep. Indexed by Scopus, which is enough to meet WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Merge per Mr. Magoo. Being...
Click to read more »sources are a press release and the journal's website). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)...
Click to read more »Indexed in Scopus, meets NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC) As for the relist comment: NJournals explains why I think this has...
Click to read more »I agree that this passes NJOURNALS. Scopus says that it's (currently) a middle-quintile journal in its field, which NJOURNALS indicates is considered "influential"...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable academic journal. Fails WP:NJOURNALS (not included in selective indexing services) and WP:GNG. An article from...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This fails WP:NJOURNALS and seemingly WP:GNG as well, but there could be a valid merge target...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails under WP:NJOURNALS , no reliable sources to be influential in its subject area, not cited...
Click to read more »sources, not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Strong KEEP...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Apparently fails WP:NJOURNALs. jps (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "one of only two sociological...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This journal does not appear to meet WP:NJOURNALS. Searching its ISSN on Social Sciences Citation Index and Scopus does...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »therapy. The solution is to create the article if the journal passes WP:NJOURNALS, or live with the redlink being listed (not every such journal will be...
Click to read more »selective databases (the only one listed being zMATH), so this fails WP:NJournals. There are two references, one a trivial listing, the other a dead link...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article contains a list of references to blogs (not reliable...
Click to read more »Keep Indexing in the Social Sciences Index [1] is sufficient to meet WP:NJOURNALS. This might actually not be true, but I am still voting keep per Randykitty's...
Click to read more »just this month. Too young to be notable yet. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Crusio (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »journal that does not seem to meet any of the minimum criteria of WP:NJournals. Unable to find any reliable, independent sources. - MrX 03:41, 1 March...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by DGG with stated reason "I am unwilling...
Click to read more »America1000 02:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Keep, while this initially seems to fail WP:NJOURNALS, based on it being indexed nowhere selective with no independent sources...
Click to read more »Non-notable journal associated with the predatory published ScopeMed. Fails WP:NJOURNALS Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »NJournals. Academic journals are rarely the subject of articles in other media. That does pose a problem. If you delve into the history of NJournals (still...
Click to read more »indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Relisted to generate...
Click to read more »Indexed nowhere, possibly lying about being in DOAJ. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NJOURNALS and likely predatory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:15, 3 February 2019...
Click to read more »GNG or WP:NJournals. Gonzlinares, even after the journal has a website, ISSN, and a call for papers, it will still not meet GNG or NJournals and any recreation...
Click to read more »fake ranking site Index Copernicus) are selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. The article currently lists 12 "references" (bare URLs), none of which...
Click to read more »selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation likely WP:TOOSOON." Article de-PRODded because...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article de-PRODded by article creator after adding a press...
Click to read more »become notable. Article creation premature. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. (Note on PubMed listing: being selected MEDLINE is a rather selective...
Click to read more »sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC) I agree, fails WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, so delete...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails GNG and NJOURNALS. No indication of notability. This journal is not listed in any selective...
Click to read more »any database (selective or not; see here]). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »impact factor is modest now but has been >1 in the past, thus passing WP:NJOURNALS criteria 1 and 2. H-index of 31 doesn't seem too shabby either. Jclemens...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation too soon." Article dePRODed without reason...
Click to read more »meet NJournals (and even less WP:GNG). --Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Keep: seems to pass a straightforward reading of NJournals #1, which...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator who added several sources...
Click to read more »no independent sources covering the journal in depth. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Keep: The journal...
Click to read more »which have cited an article published in this journal. Does not pass WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Previous AfD in November 2013 was closed as "no consensus"...
Click to read more »(talk) 19:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:NJournals - The nine papers indexed by Google Scholar did not receive any citation...
Click to read more »either show that this meets WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, either one is sufficient. It's fine with me if you want to shove WP:NJournals aside. In that case, please...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »relevant criterion of WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Delete Doesn't look to pass WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNAL. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:25...
Click to read more »Reference Center" is only a minor one. Therefore, this still does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG: no independent sources, not indexed in any selective database...
Click to read more »but no in-depth coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Does not meet WP:NJOurnals or GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Delete as original...
Click to read more »be indexed in any bibliographic database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. (Note: The article was apparently recreated 2 or 3 weeks after deletion...
Click to read more »2014 (UTC) WP:NJournals is a WP:ESSAY not a WP:policy. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Keep per Mark viking, meets WP:NJournals. Softlavender...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Albeit slightly less new now (the journal was established...
Click to read more »Clearly this passes WP:NJOURNALS, but of course that is an essay rather than a guideline. My general feeling is that NJOURNALS is an attempt to find an...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article de-PRODded by article creator with reason "The journal...
Click to read more »complete journal). In conclusion, not a single one of the criteria of WP:NJournals are met, nor does this meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:42...
Click to read more »Smitty Werben 15:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Speedy keep. Clear meet of WP:NJournals: included in Scopus and the Social Sciences Citation Index. In 2017 the...
Click to read more »Delete: Fails NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Delete. Does not meet the standards for notability per NJOURNALS or GNG. Lacks...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Indexed nowhere, fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »in BIOSIS Previews, which is only mildly selective. Does not meet WP:NJournals. There is some content in the article history, but it was deleted as being...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »WP:GNG for other reasons", so failing WP:NJOURNALS is not necessarily a reason to delete. Also, WP:NJOURNALS#C2 says that "The comprehensiveness of the...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "I request not to delete, be...
Click to read more »independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)...
Click to read more »indexed in Social Sciences Citation Index and Scopus. Clear meet of WP:NJOURNALS. Sources should be easy to add (see WP:JWG). --Randykitty (talk) 07:29...
Click to read more »May 2017 (UTC) Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC) Delete: fails WP:NJOURNALS. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 8 May...
Click to read more »here you are as always pretending that WP:NJOURNALS is an actual guideline. Note to AfD closer: NJOURNALS is just an essay written by Headbomb himself...
Click to read more »first point you seem to argue that NJournals is only an essay. That is correct, but if we choose to ignore NJournals and apply WP:GNG instead, then The...
Click to read more »update to the WP:NJournals essay. Previous rationale for reference: Weak keep Appears to meet criteria #1 of (the essay) WP:NJournals (at least with reference...
Click to read more »meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". Article dePRODded with reason "indexed in ADS". However, ADS is not a selective database in the sense of NJournals, so PROD...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded arguing that this, being "the first multilingual...
Click to read more »Catalana. Not indexed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG Vanjagenije (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Delete Thanks...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by SPA editor without reason provided. SPA...
Click to read more »taken as satisfying WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Keep: Article seems to pass WP:NJOURNALS Criterion C1. WP:BEFOREweb...
Click to read more »Journal Citation Reports, as this journal does, is an automatic pass of WP:NJOURNALS. Everymorning talk 23:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Keep. A peer-reviewed journal...
Click to read more »premature, journal too young to have already become notable. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »IF. Easily passes WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC) Keep of course. Clear pass of NJournals as Headbomb explains....
Click to read more »not very selective Emerging Sources Citation Index). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk)...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator without reason given. Journal...
Click to read more »independent sources discussing this journal in-depth. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG". Article dePRODded by article creator after adding 2 references...
Click to read more »journal thus satisfies notability criteria according to WP:NJournals criterion 1. While WP:NJournals is still technically an essay, in AfD discussions about...
Click to read more »In Scopus and has a JCR impact factor, so it meets notability via WP:NJOURNALS. --Mark viking (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Weak delete: Notability...
Click to read more »not indexed in any major selective database: does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:TOOSOON...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator after edits by a SPA and themselves...
Click to read more »meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article de-PRODded by article creator after adding 2 sources that however also do not satisfy either NJournals or GNG. PROD...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »MIAR included in several highly selective databases. Clearly meets WP:NJournals. Article is too brief and fails to show notability clearly (although having...
Click to read more »the least selective database among those that WP:NJournals considers "selective". Clear fail of NJournals. No independent sources, so also fails WP:GNG....
Click to read more »not certain that this journal fails WP:NJOURNALS, but I'm also struggling to prove that it passes WP:NJOURNALS. I'm mostly turning up things about the...
Click to read more »America1000 01:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Delete/merge Dismal failure of WP:NJournals. Not indexed in any selective database. The editor claims on her user...
Click to read more »keep this journal article based on WP:NJournals. In fact, it is clearly stated that this does not meet NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2024...
Click to read more »the sense of WP:NJournals. Also misses WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC) Delete per Randykitty, fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t ·...
Click to read more »sources, not indexed in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »(UTC) Journal is indexed and fairly well-ranked in SCOPUS. Keep per WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator who added an in-passing mention...
Click to read more »WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded after addition of indexing info. However, none of the added databases are selective in the sense of NJournals...
Click to read more »Not listed in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Crusio (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article dePRODded because the journal is published by Springer...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by SPA, after several external links were...
Click to read more »significant impact on his/her field of study. NJournals was modelled in part on PROF (I know, I started NJournals and the edit summary of that first edit actually...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." PROD removed by article creator with reason "I believe that...
Click to read more »Academics likes to fudge things like these to look better) and meets WP:NJOURNALS. The journal has a longer history than at Allied Academics, having been...
Click to read more »since November last year. No indication that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »sources, I don't think this can be kept. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Too soon." Article dePRODded with reason "Journal edited by...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator without reason stated; PROD reason...
Click to read more »Expanded and Scopus, with a respectable impact factor of 4.8. The essay WP:NJournals explains why I feel that this means that this journal is notable. --Randykitty...
Click to read more »(UTC) WP:SJ and WP:NJournals are in direct conflict with each other. Both are officially essays but my opinion is that WP:NJournals is much closer to being...
Click to read more »times. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Delete. Fails NJournals and GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC) It's not four...
Click to read more »list (individually, not trough the publisher). Indexed nowhere. Fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »would not meet NJournals. Likewise, MIAR does not include this journal, but lists 3 non-selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, perhaps...
Click to read more »(see WP:JWG), but since the journal is indexed in Scopus, it meets WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Keep The journal's own...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »independent sources, not indexed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)...
Click to read more »to the field (cf. WP:NJOURNALS). Your striking argument is that the journal is not listed in some sources detailed in WP:NJOURNALS. Foremost, Scopus, FENS...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reason "It is from...
Click to read more »indexing (fails NJournals), modest citation counts (fails NJournals), nothing indicating any historical significance (another fail of NJournals). --Randykitty...
Click to read more »"Non-notable journal. Only one short independent source. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article was dePRODded with edit summary "I did everything...
Click to read more »journal have negligible citation scores on Google Scholar. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)...
Click to read more »sources, not indexed in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Prod was contested by the journal's editor. VQuakr (talk) 08:42...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by artucle creator with reason "Wikipedia...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator without reason given...
Click to read more »mentioned is a selective database in the sense of WP:NJournals. Therefore this fails both GNG and NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 04:24, 18 December...
Click to read more »(talk) 18:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Delete. Complete fail of WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. Article creation way WP:TOOSOON. Merging into the NPG article is undesirable...
Click to read more »contents are basically a list of all issues published. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »notability for an academic text. I note also that it even passes the ESSAY WP:NJournals criterias #1, #2 & #3. This journal is notable to and strongly used by...
Click to read more »Architecture, has an ISI impact factor and therefore satisfies criteria 1 of WP:NJournals. I also found this. Its other publications also seem to be widely cited...
Click to read more »to this page. The result was delete. Noting that not meeting the WP:NJOURNALS or WP:GNG notability criteria is not a comment on the quality of the journal...
Click to read more »lying about being in the DOAJ (and probably many other things), fails WP:NJOURNALS Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation way too soon." Article dePRODded (by creator...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »about one particular student article, not the journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Delete for failing WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. I think the...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Comment This is...
Click to read more »is not a shred of notability. The article meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Keep. This journal...
Click to read more »that this journal was listed by Scopus, which makes it a clear meet of NJournals. Note that it has since been discontinued, but also note that notability...
Click to read more »to become notable, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." Nothing has changed since the dePROD, hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 12:02...
Click to read more » The result was delete. Evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NJournals not provided. J04n(talk page) 13:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Academicus...
Click to read more »included in several very selective databases, making this a clear pass of WP:NJournals. The article is in a sorry state, but instead of taking this to AfD, the...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator without reason given, after adding...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reason "this journal...
Click to read more »10 February 2015 (UTC) Keep Per first AfD (indexed in Scopus, meets WP:NJournals). No idea why the notability tag was not removed after that (was clear...
Click to read more »independent sources, not included in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG". Article dePRODded by anonymous IP with no reason stated. PRODreason...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "Improved the page by adding...
Click to read more »org/indexingjcsb.php[predatory publication]). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Delete Nice to see...
Click to read more »either). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Now it should meet WP:NJournals for criterion 1, having added...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »in Google Books, but no in-depth independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator who posted a justification on...
Click to read more »don't think it fails NJOURNALS. It's indexed in Scopus and EBSCO. Nobody (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC) The remarks from WP:NJOURNALS specifically says Note...
Click to read more »I could (given in WP:NJournals and others - more below), and that is what led me to Worldcat - it's right there in WP:NJournals. Saying "nobody has been...
Click to read more »independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePROD edit summary refers to ISSN and independent sources...
Click to read more »Social Sciences Citation Index, and MEDLINE, which is a clear pass of WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Keep Indexing demonstrates...
Click to read more »sources, not indexed in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG". Hence: Delete Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)...
Click to read more »are listed on its website), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator with reason (on talk page): "it...
Click to read more »one...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Note that WP:NJournals is an essay not a guideline or policy (although it confusingly states...
Click to read more »sufficient coverage to establish notability for the journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)...
Click to read more »should only be created (even if they are listed here) if they meet WP:NJournals and/or WP:GNG. This list grew out of a discussion where it was felt that...
Click to read more »in Google Books, but no in-depth independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator who posted a justification on...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." PROD opposed by article creator on talk page with the argument...
Click to read more »Regions there are ways in which specific relevant criteria can be used (WP:NJOURNALS): it is indexed in SJR and ranked 92 out of 253 in development studies...
Click to read more »of predatory open access publishing. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »should only be created (even if they are listed here) if they meet WP:NJournals and/or WP:GNG. This list grew out of a discussion where it was felt that...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG". Article dePRODded by article creator (SPA) without reason...
Click to read more »the previous AfD years ago are not convincing either. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »together, I think that this journal at least meets WP:NJOURNALS#C3 and WP:GNG, even if WP:NJOURNALS#C1 is tenuous. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics /...
Click to read more »is WP:NJournals. While not everybody agrees that meeting NJournals is enough to establish notability, everybody agrees that not meeting NJournals is a...
Click to read more »Scopus, CAS, CSA, and many others), has impact factor, and thus meets WP:NJOURNALS with flying colors. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:35...
Click to read more »selective databases, there are no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation way too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 10:24, 9...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator with reason "nope". PROD reason...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:GNG. Though WP:NJOURNALS may apply here, Though this article passes WP:NJOURNALS, I could not find any secondary sources which...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. (As an aside: I cannot find any other issue apart from the...
Click to read more »selective databases, no independent third-party sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2012...
Click to read more »no impact factor, and is seldom cited or quoted. Fails WP:NORG and WP:NJOURNALS. Worldbruce (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Changing my !vote to keep, based on Headbomb's findings below: indexing in Scopus meets NJournals. Randykitty...
Click to read more »clock is ticking.... 01:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Delete does not meet WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)...
Click to read more »indexed in any Clarivate database, so this is fake. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator, removing the IF and adding some...
Click to read more »conversant with this criterion yet), but this appears not to satisfy WP:NJOURNALS. As far as I can see, this journal is not indexed in any selective database...
Click to read more »--DHeyward (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Keep Indexing in AIO, meets WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Relisted to generate...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation too soon." DePRODded by anonymous IP with...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article de-PRODded with reason "extensive article in deWP...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation way too soon." DePRODded by article creator...
Click to read more »premature. Not indexed anywhere, no third-party sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODed by article creator without stated reason...
Click to read more »independent source. Article creation premature. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Crusio (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Delete - As per nomination. Rcsprinter...
Click to read more »call for submissions for the second issue of 2015 (!). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded because contested on its talk page. No convincing...
Click to read more »selective databases is major and selective. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Keep As explained...
Click to read more »is hardly ever cited by any other journals. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »an impact factor alone is good enough per WP:NJOURNALS#C1. While not an official guideline, WP:NJOURNALS has been the effective guideline for deciding...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)...
Click to read more »selectivity required by NJournals. Neither do some routine citations to articles published in this journal indicate notability. Fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator with reason "it is the only reformed...
Click to read more »17:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Keep indexed in Scopus since 2011, passes WP:NJOURNALS. Ranks #295/606 in Philosophy (not that this would ever make it a WP:RS)...
Click to read more »should only be created (even if they are listed here) if they meet WP:NJournals and/or WP:GNG. This list grew out of a discussion where it was felt that...
Click to read more »There are no third party sources either. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." DePRODded by SPA editor with edit summary: "DOAJ added". DOAJ is not...
Click to read more »don't even exist yet. Article creation vastly premature. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article dePRODded with reason "The announcement of these journals...
Click to read more »independent source, which is just an in-passing mention. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Comment...
Click to read more »user-contributed (and borderline predatory: Index Copernicus). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator who added a lot of promotional...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "Created by a prolific contributor"...
Click to read more »database (nor, apparently, in any other database either). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)...
Click to read more »the recent critiques of NJOURNALS have been that it is too lenient, that too many non-notable journals are kept based on NJOURNALS arguments. What is less...
Click to read more »it has a substantial impact factor, hence this convincingly meets WP:NJournals. I'll try to update and expand the article later today. --Randykitty (talk)...
Click to read more »the Modern Language Association Database), so this is a clear meet of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC) Keep per Simon223. The...
Click to read more »that a trip to the library would reveal sufficient citations to satisfy NJournals criteria 2, "The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources...
Click to read more »sources, not indexed in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »should only be created (even if they are listed here) if they meet WP:NJournals and/or WP:GNG. This list grew out of a discussion where it was felt that...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation way WP:TOOSOON." Article dePRODded by creator...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk)...
Click to read more »independent sources, not included in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Justification...
Click to read more »Long-established journal, indexed in Scopus amongst others. Easy pass of WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Relisted to generate...
Click to read more »Ulrich's is not selective in the sense of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC) WP:NJournals has no clear statements with regard to such...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Nanosci (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »notability. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Delete - Fails GNG/NJOURNALS. It does not appear to be listed...
Click to read more »in Google Books, but no in-depth independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator who posted justification on article's...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Declined prod based on meeting NJOURNALS (which is an essay). Based on 1 primary source. Article is basically a...
Click to read more »AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »Not indexed in any major selective database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Delete on the grounds...
Click to read more »for WP:GNG and no WP:RS exist to show that it meets any criteria of WP:NJOURNALS. The three references in the article are identical and the two external...
Click to read more »on it; it should not be returned to the mainspace unless it meets WP:NJournals. JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Majlesi Journal of Electrical...
Click to read more »January 2023 (UTC) Delete, fails WP:NJOURNALS, and DOAJ is certainly not selective in the sense of WP:NJOURNALS#C1 (see note 1b in particular). Headbomb...
Click to read more »Published by an equally non-notable academic organization. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »trivial library catalog entries, or not independent. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article undeleted upon request with promise to improve article...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article created WP:TOOSOON" PROD was replaced with a proposal...
Click to read more »sources, not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Delete - Policy reasoning...
Click to read more »new, journal. Not indexed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded with reason "im contesting deletion since several...
Click to read more »it exists) nor could I find it in Scopus, so I believe this fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. It is unsourced, which is why I don't understand it was accepted...
Click to read more »23:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC) Delete as journals listed here doesn't pass WP:NJournals. ~ Nanosci (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Delete per above. --mikeu talk...
Click to read more »journal's own website on the UNC Dept. of History website). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Keep, journal...
Click to read more »meets WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC) It was in Medline but no longer. Some caveats about Medline in WP:NJournals, not an...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL, mainly because it's too soon for them to be notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG...
Click to read more »none of them very selective. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »journal thus satisfies notability criteria according to WP:NJournals criterion 1. While WP:NJournals is still technically an essay, in AfD discussions about...
Click to read more »to be indexed are selective, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "MLA is the most selective index...
Click to read more »database, nor are there any independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by IP with stated reason "Article meets requirements...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:DEL8: Not notable, does not meet WP:NJOURNALS or WP:GNG. This publication should not be confused with Chinese Historical...
Click to read more »discriminative major databases. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals Crusio (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Delete. May become notable in...
Click to read more »inclusion in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) is enough to meet WP:NJournals. However, as far as I can see from ESCI's inclusion criteria, these are...
Click to read more »academic journals, according to WP:WikiProject Academic Journals, is WP:NJOURNALS. That guideline suggests that being reindexed by selective indices or...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC) Delete. As...
Click to read more »count) 17:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This should also be judged against WP:NJOURNALS (an essay but widely used). Perhaps someone who follows WikiProject Deletion...
Click to read more »http://science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/). No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Delete. I...
Click to read more »selective index) and several les selective indices, so this meets WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC) Merge to SCMS Cochin...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)...
Click to read more »which have cited an article published in this journal. Does not pass WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »less and less selective, inclusion in it is usually taken as meeting WP:NJournals. BTW, Beall did not say this publisher was "junk", just that the journals...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." I figure that still holds true, and should prompt a second...
Click to read more »Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »TWL) Indexed almost nowhere, listed on Beall's list, no impact. Fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »but this is far too less to indicate any notability. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded after addition of some trivial/non-independent...
Click to read more »08:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC) Delete - Non-notable journal, fails GNG and NJOURNALS. The Twitter sources cited are pretty obviously not reliable or independent...
Click to read more »WP:NJOURNALS". DePRODed with reason "Removed PD/D tag so we can improve article to meet standards". However, WP:BEFORE suggests that neither NJournals nor...
Click to read more »22:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Keep Indexed in Scopus and hence meeting WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Keep per Randykitty's...
Click to read more »(talk) 17:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Keep The other Critical Reviews meet WP:NJOURNALS and I don't see what's different with this one. Headbomb {talk / contribs...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »TWL) Non-notable journal. Article creation premature. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." It was de-PRODded by User:Headbomb with reason"plenty of databases"...
Click to read more »reference is to YouTube. No indication of any notability, does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »have disappeared without a trace after only a handful of issues. Fails NJournals and GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »any selective major databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Note that this is a different publication from the journal...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator, who has posted a justification...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »Reuters Master Journal List. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Keep:The journal...
Click to read more »target. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC) Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »(with independent reference), which generally is taken as satisfying WP:NJournals#C1. --Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »but in any case, just a list, no in-depth coverage). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Delete: I'm not...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reason given on...
Click to read more »independent notability, the journal does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Merge to Shakespeare Fellowship (including the infobox) seems like an...
Click to read more »is rather promotional in tone. As far as I can tell, it fails both WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »sources, not covered in any selective major databases. does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." It was de-PRODded with comments on the talk page asserting...
Click to read more »20 October 2012 (UTC) Delete WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. De-PRODded by IP without specific reason stated. PROD reasons...
Click to read more »Article needs expansion (see WP:JWG), but the journal clearly meets WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Randykitty, Withdrawing...
Click to read more »lists nothing. Not indexed anywhere, no independent sources: misses WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Delete this...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "(Copernicus journals have a...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent reliable sources. Misses WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "deprod, this desevers an AfD...
Click to read more »notability. I will also comment that the reason quoted for deprodding (WP:NJOURNALS#2) makes no sense to me. Not only is that an essay, not policy, this is...
Click to read more »sources, not listed in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. As for the "journals covered", WP:NOTINHERITED obviously applies...
Click to read more »provides any evidence of passing WP:GNG (the controlling guideline) nor WP:NJOURNALS. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Delete I searched Google...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded with reason "in Project Muse. Such journals are...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator whoc claims notability...
Click to read more »Not indexed in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »covered in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Delete: Non-notable...
Click to read more »the journal is not included in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »published a single issue. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Journal that fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. 1900-5121, its ISSN, does not turn up any results at MIAR...
Click to read more »creator without any reason. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Delete At the very...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »The journal does not exist yet and does not satisfy either WP:N or WP:NJournals. Not indexed anywhere, no subscriptions or library holdings, no ISSN number...
Click to read more »ROAD is not selective either), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »selective major database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Relisted to generate...
Click to read more »premature. References do not even mention the journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »do so. Being a stub is not a criterion for deletion per WP:DEL. At WP:NJournals, under the Caveats section point 2, the journal's homepage may be used...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »(talk) 15:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Delete. No evidence of passing WP:NJournals. See my longer response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of...
Click to read more »independent sources, not listed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2012...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON." I agree with this, however,...
Click to read more »the main problem. The coverage is not enough to satisfy either GNG or NJOURNALS. Harvard is Harvard. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC) I am...
Click to read more »sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." It was de-PRODded by the article creator who added text indicating that...
Click to read more »neither of which seems to have generated much interest. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »does not even list an ISSN), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG" and (apart from the -trivial- ISSN) still stands. Hence: delete...
Click to read more »Architecture, has an ISI impact factor and therefore satisfies criteria 1 of NJournals. I also found this. James500 (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Relisted...
Click to read more »indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Relisted to generate...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals". Article dePRODded by article creator (who is director of the organisation...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Added independent...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »20:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Keep. Indexed in Scopus, which meets WP:NJournals. Article needs a lot of work, but that's not a reason to delete. --Randykitty...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "The page should not be deleted...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator without reason given...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NJOURNALS. As far as I can tell, this is a predatory journal, effectively cited...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »databases that include it are selective enough to make this qualify under WP:NJournals. It would appear to be most logical to include a few lines on the journal...
Click to read more »November 2025 (UTC) Comment: could you please indicate how this meets WP:NJournals? --Randykitty (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC) @Randykitty: For C1...
Click to read more »contains some predatory journals). No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »ArcAngel (talk) ) 11:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Keep Clear pass of WP:NJournals. Since the previous AfD, the journal has been included in the Science...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator without reason given...
Click to read more »in 2010. Not notable yet, article creation premature. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »our standard guideline is WP:GNG not WP:NJournals. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC) WP:NJournals has been used for journals for well over...
Click to read more »Washington and Lee rankings with a combined score of 0. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODed by article creator without reason given....
Click to read more »biased towards locally-produced publications). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »and as you note, the citation record is more than meager, so this fails NJournals". I noted that " The journal uses the obsolete submission system (by email...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This is a non-notable journal that fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS. I originally redirected the article back to the organization that publishes...
Click to read more »predatory open access publisher that is on Beall's list. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". DePRODded by article creator without stated reason. PROD...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded without reason given. PROD reason still...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded with reason "Is indexed in some selective databases...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »to find it in selective indexes. It seems to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. There seems to be a Springer journal with a similar name, this one is...
Click to read more »selective databases, nor did I find any independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »Comment there is WP:NJOURNAL which is the relevant test here, not WP:GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC) WP:NJOURNAL is an essay; WP:GNG...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »rationale "I think it may fail NJOURNAL but pas GNG based on coverage linked." I disagree, this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS Headbomb {t · c · p · b}...
Click to read more »would very much surprise me that this publication is not notable under WP:NJOURNALS, particularly Criterion 3. However, I haven't heard of it before today...
Click to read more »either WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Rhadow (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Delete per above: the article currently fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL. InterstellarGamer12321...
Click to read more »them WP mirrors, the rest apparently fairly trivial. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »editing, no independent sources seem to exist. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Soft delete I just did...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by anonymous IP without reason stated. PROD...
Click to read more »notable, but I just checked its homepage and see enough to satisfy WP:NJournals (will update the Numen article later). --Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 28 September...
Click to read more »currently included is the "Bibliography of Asian Studies"). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator with reason "We are indexed in...
Click to read more »That is not, however, the coverage that satisfies WP:GNG, WP:WEB, or WP:NJournals for that matter. (This is indeed not an academic journal, but even if...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article de-PRODed with reason "Numerous incoming wiklinks...
Click to read more »(talk) 15:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Delete. No evidence of passing WP:NJournals. See my longer response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of...
Click to read more »very modest citation record, no independent sources. Misses WP:GNG andWP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Delete Not enough indepth...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator without reason stated. PROD reason...
Click to read more »means that they found it influential. It's a bit minimal, but it meets NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC) Keep Being indexed in...
Click to read more »(GS aims to cover everything and is not selective). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »these databases are selective and major, both requirements to fulfill WP:NJournals. Perhaps somebody who knows this field better can tell us this. --Crusio...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »cited are a news release and the journal's own website). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »selective databases, no in-depth independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals". Article dePRODded with the addition of some sources, but none reliable...
Click to read more »required. There is also a more specific one for academic journals, WP:NJOURNALS, which may be useful here, although note that it's an informal essay and...
Click to read more »Is commercial and fails User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable and fails WP:NJOURNALS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC) Delete Blatant advertising...
Click to read more »sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Keep. WP:NJournals's objection to Pubmed as...
Click to read more »listed in any major, selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Delete - That's OCLC 774086872...
Click to read more »created by the journal's production manager. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Article creation way too soon. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:47...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article creation WP:TOOSOON. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk)...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. (Note that the "impact factors" listed on the journal's website...
Click to read more »possibly be notable yet. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »any database and Google only renders a Facebook page. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC) Redirect...
Click to read more »databases (ESCI is not selective), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)...
Click to read more »only shows that it exists and does not provide evidence of passing WP:NJournals. Re the nominator's remarks about the reputation of the publisher: it...
Click to read more »criteria. NJournals is an essay, but it is designed to make it easier for journals to meet our notability criteria. If a journal does not meet NJournals, it...
Click to read more »don't find any indication that this journal meets either WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, so expanding and moving to main space is not an option. In fact, it looks...
Click to read more »probable predatory scholarly open-access journals". Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator without reason stated. PROD reason...
Click to read more »(talk) 15:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Delete. No evidence of passing WP:NJournals. See my longer response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »Index Expanded and (since it's listed in SCImago) Scopus, so it meets WP:NJournals (see here). --Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Keep as argued...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "This article is a translation...
Click to read more »(talk) 15:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Delete. No evidence of passing WP:NJournals. See my longer response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of...
Click to read more »journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no sources. Does meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." The article claims that the journal is indexed in PubMed....
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by anonymous IP without stated reason. PROD reason...
Click to read more »sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." DePRODDed by anonymous IP with reason "has filed application for ISSN...
Click to read more »entry meets both WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. To be clear, this editor argues to keep the Digital Law Asia entry. Reasons under WP:NJournals The criteria here...
Click to read more »(talk) 17:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Keep The other Critical Reviews meet WP:NJOURNALS and I don't see what's different with this one. Headbomb {talk / contribs...
Click to read more »Multidisciplinary" it still ranks in the upper third (48 out of 167). Meets WP:NJournals. I have added the foregoing IF and ranking info to the article (with ref)...
Click to read more »selective major database, no third-party references. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Delete per...
Click to read more »major databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC) As the...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC) the journal itself...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by anonymous IP with reason: "False and...
Click to read more »catalogs, no independent sources are available. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »article yet: creation of a WP article is premature. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »leaving much trace... No indication that this meets (or has ever met) WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)...
Click to read more »specific guidance on the notability of academic journals. An essay, WP:NJOURNALS, exists, however, no argument was advanced that this journal meets it...
Click to read more »PsycINFO, but that is not considered a selective database in the sense of WP:NJournals. Reference 11 is the journal's own homepage and reference 12 is used to...
Click to read more »not indexed in any major selective database: does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »sufficiently covered by independent and selective indexes to pass WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC) SNOWBALL Delete....
Click to read more »