Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algorithms (journal): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Nosebagbear (talk | contribs) response to Nsda |
|||
Line 23:
*'''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)
:::{{Ping|Nsda}}, firstly there is nothing preventing later editors providing additional deletion rationales to that originally offered. Secondly, your claim is a rather dramatic rebuttal of [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]. NJOURNAL is an essay, and I'm none too sure about the suitability of using it rather than purely than [[WP:GNG]] (which definitely sets out firmer Sig Cov/reliable source requirements than are met in this article/discussion). [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 16:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
| |||