Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical Review Applied

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 redirected to Physical Review. (non-admin closure) Ethically ^(Yours) 07:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

"Awesome provenance" can only be interpreted as a case of WP:INHERIT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:55, 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]
When it properly indexed like the other spin-off journals, it too will become a spin-off from Physical Review. Until then a redirect is sufficient. I think "jumping the gun" makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. It has not even published any articles yet, I gather. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Keeping would be wp:CRYSTAL at this stage - it's only just started considering articles. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Physical Review - completely non-notable as of yet, and any claims it does are clearly failing WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate when they've published a few things and been shown to be notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is a typical scenario. We know the topic will be notable. However it is not notable yet under the guidelines. So there is no choice but to WP:USERFY and make a reminder to check back in a few months for sources and recreate. It's busy work, but what can you do. The deletion is not permanent until independent sources are available to justify a standalone article. -- GreenC 07:32, 24 December 2013 (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.