Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revista da Biologia


 * 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. Not much discussion, so calling this a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Revista da Biologia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The deletion tag appeared on the article while I was replying on User_talk:Rpavao3. Moreover, an error occurred when I trying to save it, and it was lost. The main points which were described there were: (1) the reasons for the notability of the article (which were included on the abstract of the article); and (2) the Scielo indexing which is on process. Finally, I believe that the on-line editing on Wikipedia is great, but when it refers to deletion procedures it should be done more slowly, for avoiding unnecessary frustration. Rpavao3
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but being included in Scielo is not selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I've cleaned up some of the cruft and promotional language, but I have to say that I can't find any evidence of meeting either WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS. Of course, if the journal becomes notable in the future, the article can be recreated then. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:37, 4 March 2016 (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.