Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical Reviews in Biomedical 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. BigDom talk 17:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
publication of questionable notability, unreferenced WuhWuzDat 18:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Scholarly journal. Fotaun (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The other Critical Reviews meet WP:NJOURNALS and I don't see what's different with this one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:36, 8 March 2011 (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.