Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Algebra in Scientific Computing (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Computer Algebra in Scientific Computing
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. First AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a tough one, as we don't have specific notability criteria for computer science conferences. I agree that the conference fails WP:GNG, as I was unable to find in depth secondary reliable sources. The best subject-specific criterion I can find is at the List of computer science conferences, which has inclusion based on having a ranking by MAR or other institutions. In this CASC seems to fail, as it is unranked at Top conferences in scientific computing or other ranking sites I gleaned from the article. So at this point, I don't see independent evidence of impact or notability, and am forced to conclude that this should be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- insufficient sourcing to meet GNG and sustain an encyclopedia article. This content is already probably housed on the conference's web site, and does not need to be repeated here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I could not find enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Jujutacular (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.