Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metallurgical and Materials Engineering

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  16:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metallurgical and Materials Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article about a journal. No evidence that it passes WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALCRIT. - MrX 11:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's no evidence that this journal meets WP:NJOURNAL. It's included in Clarivate Analytics's Emerging Sources Citation Index, but that's not good enough for WP:NJOURNAL. — Stringy Acid^talk 17:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep. Looks like a well-established journal (22 years history) published by a bona fide academic institution, even if from a non-English speaking country. 1510 citations listed on Google Scholar [1]. Impressive editorial board for such a niche journal [2]. Note that WP:NJOURNAL / WP:JOURNALCRIT is an essay and can't be "failed", however it also states that "however, smaller journal can be also be notable if they can be considered to be influential in their field." I suggest we keep this discussion open until enough editors with knowledge of this field weigh in. — kashmiri ^TALK 11:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The journal meets WP:NJOURNAL. The main criteria for WP:NJOURNAL are these three criteria and it only has to meet one of them: 1) The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. 2) The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources 3) The journal is historically important in its subject area. It likely meets criteria #1 for its small niche given its impressive editorial board filled with very qualified people.[3] (as alluded to by User: kashmiri. Given the small nature of its niche, 1520 citations is notable, so it meets criteria #2. The journal has a 22 year track record which is very respectable, so one could argue that has some historical significance in its field.desmay (talk)

• Keep, while this initially seems to fail WP:NJOURNALS, based on it being indexed nowhere selective with no independent sources provided to establish notability. Editorial boards are of no consequence, likewise for the number of years it's be published. I would have voted !delete based on that, but then I search for the old name of the journal. Under its old name, it was extensively indexed, amongst others Scopus (Emerging Sources Citation Index, Scopus, Academic Search Premier, Aerospace Database, Civil Engineering Abtracts, Compendex, Metadex, Communication Abstracts, DOAJ). Also, according to its very badly written history page, "The magazine has been awarded the Charter for the best IT publication in 2006." and "According to the National Library of Serbia, this journal belongs to the group of M52 (journal of national importance)...". That makes is a clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS and thus should be kept. However, I'll ping DGG here to confirm this is not a continuation of the journal, and a new journal that replaced an old one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I now located the home page of Metalurgija [4] and it appears that Metallurgical and Materials Engineering is not "a continuation of Metalurgija", which is published to this day, but an entirely different journal. Please correct me if I am mistaken. — kashmiri ^TALK 23:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am prepared to accept that being on the Emerging Journals part of the ISI database is enough by itself; what that section of the database does is extend the ISI coverage to match Scopus--Scopus' wider coverage was one of its main selling points, and consequently the two have been leapfrogging each other for years now, with the net result that the journal coverage of both has become wider and contains less important journals. If we accept Scopus, we should accept Emerging Journals. As for continuation, there appear to be two journals titled Metalurgija, the one this title continues, which claims to have been published since 1994 by the Association of Metallurgical Engineers of Serbia (which says it is "financially supported by the Ministry of Science of Republic of Serbia") , and the one published by the Croatian Metallurgical Society (which says it is " non-governmental and non-profit organization."), which claims to have been published since 1962 [5]. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So, this would be another casualty of Yugoslavia split? — kashmiri ^TALK 12:52, 8 May 2017 (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.