Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methods in Ecology and Evolution Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Methods_in_Ecology_and_Evolution

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. Ok, I think we have had enough heel face turns to punch this one. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Methods in Ecology and Evolution

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article dePRODded by anonymous IP with reason "de-PROD since it isn't clear that notability hasn't been established", but without any article improvement. PROD reason was: New journal, too young to be notable yet, article creation premature. Not indexed anywhere, no third-party sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet requirements of WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not indexed by ISI. No third party citations. No objections to undeletion if that ever happens. -Atmoz (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a publication of the "British Ecological Society" established in 1913. Though the publication is new the founding organization is not. In fact, "It was the first ecological society in the world.". As such it is note worth as a scientific journal and is well within Wiki guidelines.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The society if notable without any doubt. However, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. --Crusio (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I closed this on the 7th of Feb as "delete" but it's been pointed out to me that this journal has accepted for indexing in ISI. Since not being indexed was one of the reasons gived why the article should be deleted, I think it's reasonable to reopen this discussion so this new information can be considered. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a new online journal, but it is peer-reviewed, it is sponsored by a venerable entity (the British Ecological Society) that publishes several other very influential journals, and its publisher is Wiley-Blackwell -- one of the biggest and best-regarded publishers of academic journals. The fact that it is now indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) is further evidence of notability. Additionally, I found several ghits on announcements about researchers who are serving on the editorial board and papers published in the journal. Examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]. --Orlady (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As there are some delete !votes, I can't just withdraw the nom I think. The one thing that clinches it for me is the ISI coverage, which should be added to the article. This result should, I hope, encourage the article creator and others to wait until notability clearly is established before creating an article. --Crusio (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now. Geez that nom was ill-timed. :-P -Atmoz (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.