Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical Review Applied

Physical Review Applied

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

Scientific journal, the first issue of which still has to appear. Doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please read the history of the Physical Review, though. They are not some vanity publishing operation; they began publishing in 1893. The Phys. Rev. series, of which PRApplied is the latest member, has many of the most famous physics journals in the world. PRapplied based on their web page will soon be well known. One could have waited for the first published paper to enter the wikipedia page but they seem to be looking to publish papers in early 2014 per their web page. Consult any physics professor; they will say the same. So why wait? by the beagle, 19 December 2013

WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Each journal is considered separately by the notability criteria and needs reliable, third-party sources to warrant its own article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 01:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Journal has awesome provenance. Nominations like this make Wikipedia look ridiculous. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect to Physical Review, where it is already mentioned. Since when has AfD not made Wikipedia look ridiculous? This new journal is not yet indexed in selective databases nor could I find multiple in depth independent RS about the topic. It fails both WP:NJournals and WP:GNG thresholds for notability. However the existence of the journal as a business concern is verifiable and it is a plausible search term, so a redirect is justifiable. --Mark viking (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Xxanthippe. This is essentially a spin-off article of Physical Review. Deletion is totally inappropriate; this a very silly nom. A merge to Physical Review is a possibility, but that article has spun off all the journals in the family to separate articles. Consistency requires doing the same here. -- 101.119.14.244 (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]