Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Closed as no consensus (XFDcloser) |
|||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed archived mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
===[[:IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications]]===▼
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''no consensus'''__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I don't see a consensus here in this discussion and there are enough comments at this point about journals and notabiity that I don't think further relistings will clarify the divided opinion. I realize that this closure might be challenged again at DRV but I think that could happen with any possible closure decision (Keep, Delete, Redirect or Merge). Editors advocating a Merge or Redirect can continue this discussion on the article talk page but I think it is time to bring this discussion to a close. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
▲===[[:IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications]]===
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|1=IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 25#{{anchorencode:IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1179938576/cur|edits since nomination]])
Line 104 ⟶ 109:
::::::I do think it's much easier to show notability for the collection; in searching for sources discussing CG&A, I found several nice sources discussing e.g. the history of IEEE computer graphics publications, or the history of IEEE magazines. All the big publishers seem to attract coverage in a way that individual journals rarely do. Anyway, it benefits readers if it prevents fragmentation of information and provides context on under-covered (aka non-notable) topics, as Hobit says. But benefit is the crux of the issue, right? There are lots of non-notable topics that would benefit readers if we covered them in stand-alone articles, cf. the on-going debates about sport bios, or [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination)|Google Chrome version history]], etc. I think Wikipedia is probably worse if we allowed thousands of non-notable trade publications to put up a free marketing page, and I think Wikipedia is probably better if we allowed thousands of non-notable academic publications to put up a free marketing page. It's not a surprise I'm biased in favor of the academic journals and think they're useful, but until we have a policy that reflects a consensus beyond my personal biases in favor of academics, I'm reticent to explicitly endorse it. [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 16:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Perhaps you could add those sources to [[List of IEEE publications]], to demonstrate that it is actually notable as a list and viable as a merge target. Currently it only has non-independent sources. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 17:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||