Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice


 * 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   Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The journal is not discussed by others. I can find no RSes to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. NBOOK states that one proper criterion for judging the notability of academic books is "how widely the book is cited by other academic publications". Cf. similar citation criterion for academics in WP:ACADEMIC. Google Books and Scholar show numerous citations to this journal. Microsoft Academic Search ranks this journal twentyfirst on its list of Software Engineering journals by citation. . 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per above. I recommend that the proposer does more research before proposing deletion in the future, especially if in an area in which they are not familiar. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I added indexing information to the article. The journal is indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded and SCOPUS and has an impact factor; per WP:NJournals, the journal thus satisfies criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area and passes threshold of notability for academic journals. While WP:NJournals is an essay, it has been essentially treated as policy by AfD folk in recent times. --Mark viking (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. A well-established journal by a major publisher, with its inclusion in SCIX and SCOPUS serving as the multiple sources of independent coverage needed for NJournals and GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Sizable impact factor, included in several selective major databases: meets WP:NJournals without any problem. I've edited the article to make it up-to-date (it has changed its name last year and the article will have to be moved once this AfD is closed). --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2013 (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.