Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Networking


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Daniel (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

IEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Networking

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Unilateral move by an editor to bypass AFC. The references are inadequate, and are both scarce and not significant coverage. Not ready for mainspace. Draftify. The underlying topic is likely to have notability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Engineering.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have cleanup up the article, expanded it slightly, and added independent references. The journal is in its 6th year of publication and already included in the main selective databases Science Citation Index 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 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep satisfies all three criteria in WP:NJournals. Although this is only an essay, these are strong indicators, particularly the fact that it is indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded and Scopus. Polyamorph (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm with Randykitty on this one. Though I don't want to encourage mainspacing an article two minutes after submitting it to AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:NJOURNALS. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Included in selective indexes, has impact factor, has independent reliable sourcing. Is there some reason it needed to go through AfC, because I thought it was optional. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Editors offering opinions here should be aware of Sockpuppet investigations/Krakhesh. I present that to the community without further discussion of it nor of any implications 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: That does indeed look quite damning for Krakhesh. Concerning this article, before !voting here I gave it a thorough makeover and I hope that nothing POV/promotional remains. --Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've had another look, and agree that Randykitty has thoroughly cleaned it. Further, not to condone socking, but when articles are moved to draftspace for reasons that could easily be fixed in mainspace (here non-independent sourcing for IF), I can understand editors' frustration. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per RK. Clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:15, 9 November 2023 (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.