Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parallel Processing Letters


 * 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 keep. ✗ plicit  23:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Parallel Processing Letters

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Tagged for notability since 2010. No sourcing found. added content, but it does not seem to be any form of reputable sourcing. However, given their comments on the talk page, I am thus assuming their efforts to be a de facto deprodding and taking it to AFD for further analysis. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Computing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of hits in Google Scholar for articles published here. suggests impact factor is modest now but has been >1 in the past, thus passing WP:NJOURNALS criteria  1 and 2. H-index of 31 doesn't seem too shabby either. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The journal is listed in Scopus and other external database. Hence, it is not an insignificant journal and can pass WP:GNG. I would recommend to tag for attention and keep the article. ~ Nanosci (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable, in Scopus, passes WP:NJOURNALS. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:37, 18 May 2022 (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.