Revision as of 04:00, 16 October 2022 edit Kinu (talk \| contribs) Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators 65,993 edits →BIIG Problem Solving Method: Amend; the journal claims to have peer reviewed, but it's still junk. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:05, 16 October 2022 edit undo Kinu (talk \| contribs) Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators 65,993 edits Add. Next edit →
Line 13: * '''Delete''' --[[user:MdaNoman\|'''<span style="font-family:Cursive; color:#F50" lang="en">Noman</span>''']]☆ <span style="font-size:85%;">([[User talk: MdaNoman \|Talk]])</span> 17:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC) <!--VCB MdaNoman--> '''Delete''', predatory-journal source, fails [[WP:GNG]]. —[[User:David Eppstein\|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein\|talk]]) 21:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC) '''Delete'''. The references are an article in a journal that is predatory, a churnalism-style blurb by the author of said article, and a piece that doesn't even discuss the topic specifically. Spam masquerading as an article. Look at the article creator's contributions, it's highly likely that they are Chaitanya Hiremath and that this is nothing more than self-promotion. --<span style="font-family:Book Antiqua">[[User:Kinu\|<strong style="color:blue">Kinu</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Kinu\|<i style="color: red">t</i>]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Kinu\|<i style="color:red">c</i>]]</sub></span> 03:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BIIG Problem Solving Method: Difference between revisions