Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algorithms (journal): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Nosebagbear (talk | contribs) →Algorithms (journal): Delete - the references are simply not good enough |
Now this is a completely different rationale than that given in the original deletion request.→Algorithms (journal) |
||
Line 22:
::::::{{ping|JC7V7DC5768}} The two articles you linked don't mention the journal once. [[User:RileyBugz|<span style="color:#2D3D67">RileyBugz</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:RileyBugz|<span style="color:#D7000B">私に叫ぼう</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/RileyBugz|<span style="color:#D7000B">私の編集</span>]]</sub> 02:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - there are multiple references quoted, but they don't seem to do anything other than prove existence, and the ones mooted by JC7V7DC5768 don't seem to cover it at all. I can't see sheer listing at Scopus being anywhere near sufficient, and if GNG is the primary notability grounds here, then standard levels of sourcing quality is required, and it isn't met. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 09:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
:Now this is a completely different rationale than that given in the original deletion request. I could agree with you if we did a similar purge on ''all'' journal articles, regardless of what we guess about the quality of the journal, basing deletion decisions solely on ''your'' criterion. -- [[User:Nsda|Nsda]] ([[User talk:Nsda|talk]]) 15:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
| |||