Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShortScience.org


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

ShortScience.org

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be spam. The sources aren’t very good either. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 02:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 02:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete This could well be a worthwhile project, but at best, it's too soon for there to be a Wikipedia article about the site. Such few sources that exist are some combination of primary/self-published or unreliable (e.g., an arXiv preprint that hasn't been peer-reviewed). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per XOR. ——  Serial # 14:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per XOR. The ICML paper is the only really strong source, but it's written by the site's founders. Then we have a preprint, a podcast, and a GitHub repo. The "TechLeer" blog post is verging on WP:SIGCOV, but it seems like that site may be in the neighbourhood of user-generated content (per their about page). Colin M (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2020 (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.