Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Journal of Neurological Sciences

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. Sandstein 07:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

African Journal of Neurological Sciences

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

I still confirm my PROD since I have not found any third-party or significant coverage. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I explained in another journal we need not follow commercial indexing sources like scopus, ISI Web of Science, EBSCO etc. The era of these monopoly indexing will go away. Pleas watch for few more years. This is my opinion, experts can decide on "keep or delete". This journal producing acceptable science from last 33 years and supported by Pan African Association of Neurological Sciences (PAANS).Jessie1979 (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 21:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Weak keep, even though I disagree absolutely with the preceding !vote. I get it you don't like "commercial indexing sources", but there are also non-commercial sources (like MEDLINE - this journal is not in it) and, in any case, we do need sources to base our articles on, as we cannot just use our subjective impressions. As for "Pleas watch for few more years", please read WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. However, this journal is included in Scopus. Although I personally am starting to attach less and less value on the selectivity (or rather lack thereof) of Scopus, this is generally considered sufficient to establish notability. I've added this info to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Included in Scopus per Randykitty above, which is an indicator of meeting WP:JOURNALCRIT #1. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Randkitty that inclusion in Scopus does nudge this into notable territory. Scopus is probably the least stringent on journal inclusion criteria, so my general rule is that if it's not included in Scopus, then it's likely not notable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2016 (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.