Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical Reviews in Immunology


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Critical Reviews in Immunology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

publication of questionable notability, article created by blatantly COI account. Wuh Wuz  Dat  18:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Obviously notable journal with sizeable impact factor, COI is not a reason for deletion and, besides, the article has been edited for NPOV by me earlier and as far as I can see, there is no promotional language in it. --Crusio (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm too busy to give a fair assessment or recommendation, but I'd like to float an idea: merge the journal titles to the publisher and list them either as subsections or in tabular form rather than have scattered stub length articles. I am only posting this to this one AfD discussion, but obviously the principle applies to the collection.Novangelis (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not that difficult to expand this kind of articles, as I have just done for this journal. If the individual journals are notable, then I don't think merging is warranted. --Crusio (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I do not see encyclopedic notability. Being only half way up a long list of journals on the samr or similar topic does not do it for me. Obviously Immunology is notable, but that is not the discussion.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment For every journal listed by ISI in the Journal Citation Reports, there are at least 2 or 3 that are not listed. So "being halfway up a long list" should be more like "being in the top third" or something like that. At the WikiProject Academic Journals, inclusion in the JCR is generally taken as a sure sign of notability, as it is not easy at all to get into that list to start with. --Crusio (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The listing in ISI's Journal Citation Reports, together with the 2.625 impact factor, identifies this as a solid scientific journal. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Crusio and WP:SJ.— S Marshall T/C 11:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Crusio, Orlady, Marshall, and Scholarly journal. Fotaun (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Impact factor sufficient to make it notable, even if it's hardly outstanding. We even have a page for Psychological Reports. As a general comment, having this information internally available in Wikipedia helps with sourcing concerns in other articles, etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:29, 8 March 2011 (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.