Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SnarXiv

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2014 March 8.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 merge to arXiv. slakr^\ talk / 04:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SnarXiv[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable web content. Utterly fails even the general notability guidelines. At best it seems to be a one-off academic triviality given the Nature reference. Inanygivenhole (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - even given a mention in Nature, it's just a curio of no lasting significant. Move content into arXiv article. Leondz (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Had a go at finding significant coverage in reliable sources; either they don't exist or my Google-fu is unusually weak today. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Psychonaut; passing mentions, even in the two top scientific journals in the world, do not establish notability. Jinkinson talk to me 00:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: Given the top scientific journal mentions this should not be deleted. A section under arXiv with a redirect would be appropriate if not kept as a separate article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as a scientist leaning out of the ivory tower, I am left wondering - trivial novelties specific to other fields are no more notable or impactful than ours, so why should the individual publication that they're mentioned in as a one-off have a special weight in our field? Leondz (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but do not merge with ArXiv. I would prefer top scientific journals, not google, to be the measure of notability. Arcfrk (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But we couldn't create an article for everything mentioned at least once in an top journal - that's what the journal itself is for Leondz (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2014 (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.