Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eclética Química


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Eclética Química

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

unclear notability Fgnievinski (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Not indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The website lists indexing in Abstracts Journal (Referatvni Zhurnal), CAB Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts, SciFinder Scholar, and Red Alyc. My impression was that Referatvni Zhurnal meets the criteria of a selective database. Possible Red Alyc too? ? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Referatvni Zhurnal is very selective (or even "major") as intended in NJournals, but admit not being too familiar with it. Pinging for his input. --Randykitty (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot find any inclusion criteria on Redalyc's website, but from their homepage I get the impression that they strive to be comprehensive. Perhaps DGG knows more about this one, too. --Randykitty (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete To the best of my understanding RZ attempts to include every academic journal received by Russian libraries. It doesn't make for notability here. Of the various journals in this subject from this country, Ecletica Quimica is probably the least significant.  DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Per DGG then. Can't say anything about what RZ means, but Redalyc isn't indicative of notability. Fails WP:NJOURNALS and thus fails WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:11, 13 July 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.