Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic and Labour Relations Review

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Economic and Labour Relations Review[edit]

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

Article on a minor journal, created by an employee of the publishers, with no reliable independent sources. The "references" are merely index descriptors. Very low impact factor. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~I'm not sure if this fails WP:NJOURNALS~~, which explains that "having an impact factor assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Reports always qualifies under Criterion 1". Here, Journal Citation Reports gives this journal an impact factor of 0.328. Also, this journal seems to be abstracted/indexed in significant databases. ~~I'm leaning toward keeping this, but I'm willing to be persuaded if someone can show me why this fails WP:NJournals.~~ -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, I have concluded that this article passes WP:NJournals; I have updated my vote accordingly. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:NJournals, see my comments at other similar AfDs. --Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2016 (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.