Revision as of 22:05, 14 August 2018 edit Chetsford (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 45,668 edits →Algorithms (journal): weakest keep ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:06, 14 August 2018 edit undo Chetsford (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 45,668 edits ce Next edit →
Line 30: :This is not, and has never been, a directory listing in the sense of [[WP:NOTDIR]]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb\|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb\|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb\|c]] · [[WP:PHYS\|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS\|b]]}</span> 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC) * '''Keep''' The least squishy criterion that I've seen invoked in academic-journal deletion discussions is "listing in selective databases". Being indexed in Scopus is enough to carry this one over the line. [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 20:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC) *'''Weak Keep''' I'd prefer to see this deleted based on the paucity of sourcing, however, by my reading of the standards of NJOURNAL (the journal being indexed in Scopus) I am, regrettably, compelled to !vote Keep. Though, if there's a question about the veracity or - indeed - existence of its peer review process I feel like we can probably edit that away. [[User:Chetsford\|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford\|talk]]) 22:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algorithms (journal): Difference between revisions