Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Journal of Severe Storms Meteorology

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Journal of Severe Storms Meteorology

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

Article was PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal, not indexed in any major, selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded with justification "removing proposal for deletion given its prominent contributors, ~100 references in scientific journals, inclusion in hundreds of libraries that satisfy criteria 1 and 2 of WP:NJournals". However, prominent contributors don't contribute to notability, 100 references in scientific journals would mean a speedy delete for a single researcher and is way too low for a scientific journal to come even near notability, and being included in libraries is not very meaningful for an open-access journal (i.e., libraries just list it, they don't really make a formal decision to include it in their collections, as would be the case for a subscription journal). In all, does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NJournals (and WP:GNG even less). Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per the quite well spoken nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I am unable to find any reliable, independent coverage of this journal, so I guess we should delete, though the creator's reasoning on the talk page is quite persuasive. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2012 (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.