Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nano Energy


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Fade258 (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Nano Energy

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

Fails to show WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS. Fade258 (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: Huge impact factor, in several highly selective databases, clear pass of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Fairly good impact factor and other factors as described by Randykitty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaktree b (talk • contribs) 14:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The journal is indexed in Scopus and passes WP:NJOURNALS. ~ Nanosci (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy/Snow Keep. I know we're supposed to WP:AGF but I genuinely am finding it hard to believe that the nominator even read WP:NJOURNALS before starting this nomination given just how erroneous it it. Top 10% impact factors in physical chemistry and applied physics. Top 5% impact factor in materials science. It has been indexed in no less than 8 selective databases. 300,000+ citations since being established 10 years ago. This is all information available from the article and from the journal's home page. This is such an obvious keep it isn't even funny. (Full disclosure, I came here following a question by the creator of this article at the teahouse) 192.76.8.78 (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per RK. Clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Pass WP:NJournals Owlf   📪  13:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment:, don(t you think it's time to withdraw this nom? --Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for this action and agree to withdraw. From next time I don't make silly mistake like this. Fade258 (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2022 (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.