Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical Reviews in Physical Rehabilitation Medicine

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reviews in Physical Rehabilitation Medicine[edit]

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

publication of questionable notability, article created by blatantly COI account. WuhWuzDat 18:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment COI is not a reason for deletion. Any other arguments/evidence? --Crusio (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The editor's conflict of interest is certainly not an issue, but notability is not asserted or demonstrated. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:52, 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) 01:26, 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} 11:34, 8 March 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, T. Canens (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep & rename. This journal doesn't appear to be indexed in MEDLINE, but the Critical Reviews series is pretty well represented on MEDLINE and generally respected. Please note that the publication is actually named Critical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. — Scientizzle 15:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 12 precise hits in Google Books, 32 in Scholar. Anarchangel (talk) 05:51, 16 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.