Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal for Multiscale Computational Engineering


 * 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) 02:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

International Journal for Multiscale Computational Engineering

 * – ( View AfD View log )

publication of questionable notability, article created by blatantly COI account. Wuh Wuz  Dat  18:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment COI is not a reason for deletion. Any other arguments/evidence? --Crusio (talk) 18:26, 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 Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability does not appear to be asserted. Impact factors quoted place the publication half way, or less than halfway, up the scale in comparison to related publications. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously: included in JCR with very decent impact factor. --Crusio (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Inclusion in ISI's JCR is an indication of its being a solid technical journal. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep as per above. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 13:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Scholarly journal. Fotaun (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't agree with Scholarly journal but this is good enough according to Notability (academic journals). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:28, 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.