Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algorithms (journal): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
ce |
Enterprisey (talk | contribs) →Algorithms (journal): Replying to AfD nomination by RileyBugz (reply-link) |
||
Line 31:
* '''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)
* '''Weak keep''' as it seems to pass the notability guideline for journals. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]] ([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 02:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
| |||