Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetCITED
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 22:08, 6 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 22:08, 6 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GetCITED (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless independent reliable sources can be found. Powers T 22:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The subject needs to GetNOTABILITY before we can include it here. JBsupreme (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is actually a fascinating site-- a social bookmarking site for academic papers. Well worth browsing. I had heard of it, but never tried it until just now. Now if i could only remember just where I had heard of it.... .Found the following refs. 1/ a blog posting [1] from the Chronicle of HE blog, but its just a member posting, and isn't a RS, and what it says is not indicative of notability. know something about it? 2/ recommended,not just listed, at the Vanderbilt Univ Library Site [2], 3/ Univ. of Alberta, 4/ A discussion on the professional mailing list web4lib, [3] which although not a formal source, is a fairly reliable source widely used in the profession--and with a quite informative pair of comments. ,6/ Refs on other professional lists : [4], [5], and, finally, a group of well informed letters to Science magazine [6]. Put together, I think this is enough to show widespread academic use of it, & consequent notability . DGG (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I know that this article discusses it although I can't access the full-text (saw a snip of the paragraph in a GScholar search). This SSRN working paper (author affiliated with the Max Planck Society) also discusses it. So this this article from Liber Quarterly. Anyhow, sad and ironic to see overzealous Wikipedians trying to squelch the flow of structured scholarly information. You don't score points for successful AfDs. II | (t - c) 08:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. The university sources listed by DGG and II make it clearly notable. Close this AfD per WP:SNOW --Philcha (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE This was erroneously closed as a WP:SNOW keep by a non-administrator. I have overturned that as the person had absolutely no business doing so. JBsupreme (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was actually closed by Schuym1, the editor who brought the AfD, presumably in an attempt to withdraw the deletion request. I agree, however, that the AfD should run its course as there are delete comments from people other than the nominator. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE This was erroneously closed as a WP:SNOW keep by a non-administrator. I have overturned that as the person had absolutely no business doing so. JBsupreme (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I have access to the tourism article mentioned by II, but that only mentions this site in passing. DGG arguments are compelling, but I am mitigated I guess because I registered on the site myself months ago and then never really used it because it was just too much work (for instance, in contrast to other sites you cannot import articles from, e.g., PubMed, so you have to input all your publications by hand). Perhaps this will change (or even has already changed, I just never went back).... --Crusio (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- nor have I used it, though I know about it. But there are quite a number of things I could have used but don't--that does not make them any the less notable. I use some rather odd things, too, and it doesn't make them notable either. DGG (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. You're right, whether or not I think it is useful is immaterial. I don't knw anyone who uses this site either, though. But there seems to be some notability per the sources that you uncovered. --Crusio (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- nor have I used it, though I know about it. But there are quite a number of things I could have used but don't--that does not make them any the less notable. I use some rather odd things, too, and it doesn't make them notable either. DGG (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.