Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetCITED
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Schuym1 (talk | contribs) at 20:39, 26 November 2008 (closure). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 20:39, 26 November 2008 by Schuym1 (talk | contribs) (closure)
- 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 WP:SNOW Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 20:39, 26 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]
- 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.