Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification

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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification

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

publication of questionable notability, article created by blatantly COI account. WuhWuzDat 18:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is neither evident nor asserted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment COI is not a reason to delete. And you could also replace "blatant" with "honest"... --Crusio (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "Honest" would have meant spelling his companies name forwards. Spelling it backwards is "blatant". WuhWuzDat 07:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, give the guy a break, he's a newbie after all. I think that the comments on his talk page show his good faith. After all, what would be simpler than creating a username that had no relation at all to the company/journals and leave all this behind him and happily continue editing with a (now undetectable) COI. Instead, he wants to change his username and retain his current history (so that his connection with this company will remain clear even after he gets a new username). I also maintain that for a newbie, his articles were really rather neutral. The journal articles were not spammy at all but gave a neutral description of the journals, all that needed to be done was format them according to WP:MOS. Even the article on Begell House was rather neutral, the only thing one might consider spammy being the long lists of journals/books in it (and that is something most newbie -and even a lot of more experienced editors- would do). --Crusio (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 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) 01:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I can find no independent sources, it's not in ISI web, and has no recorded impact factor. --Selket ^Talk 00:01, 4 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.