- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 03:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Physics of Life Reviews
- Physics of Life Reviews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability ToonLucas22 (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep having an impact factor assigned by the 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 from the top publisher (Elsevier), indexed in the most prestigious journal database (Web of Science), having a high impact factor (latest value is 9.478) and 40k+ Google hits (Phys. Life Rev. + Physics of Life Reviews). What else do you need for notability? Materialscientist (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep-- Out of my field, but I know my way around academic journals and this seems an obvious keep to me. HullIntegrity\ talk / 23:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Aside from Web of Science, this is also indexed with the National Library of Medicine and ProQuest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Nom should be trouted for not getting more familiar with WP:NJournals before nominating this for deletion. Huge impact factor, very notable journal (even though the article could beeefit from some expanding). My suggestion is that the nom withdraws the nomination so that we can close this and avoid wasting more of the communities time. --Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- 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.