Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Hydrogen 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy[edit]

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

No coverage in independent, reliable sources meeting WP:GNG. A PROD was contested with the edit summary citing lots of Gnews hits (linked below). I see ~70 hits, some of which are news stories that mention articles in the journal, but no significant coverage of the journal itself. VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you go from the "journal homepage" listed in the article to the journal page at Elsevier, you'll find that it has a substantial impact factor, hence this convincingly meets WP:NJournals. I'll try to update and expand the article later today. --Randykitty (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no cleaned the article up and added some content and references. --Randykitty (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. The link that has been listed in the article goes to the International Association for Hydrogen Energy webpages which don't seem to have been comprehensively maintained. Over the last few years the journal has maintained a significant impact factor across a number of areas of science in this IJHE impact factor summary. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! How can you suppose that this journal doesn't exist? Where does the impact factor come from? It is listed in the web of knowledge. In 2013 it was cited not less than 35,721 times in scientific journals which should be enough independant and reliable coverage meeting WP:GNG. In fact it was the third most cited journal of all energy journals. Andol (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PLease calm down, nobody says that the journal doesn't exist and, in any case, existing is not enough to be notable. Neither is the number of citations very relevant, but the fact hat the journal is in the Science Citation Index is and should be sufficient to keep the article. --Randykitty (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have to clarify myself. I didn't want to offend anybody. I am no native speaker, so maybe I just didn't find the right words. I am sorry if my statement caused some confusion. This wasn't my purpose. Andol (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For same reasons stated above. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long-established journal from a respectable publisher that clearly meets the indexing standards of WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2015 (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.