Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Actualcpscm (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 8:
*<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting|deletion sorting]] lists for the following topics: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academic journals|Academic journals]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|Computing]]. [[User:Actualcpscm|Actualcpscm]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Actualcpscm|scrutinize]], [[User talk:Actualcpscm#top|talk]]</sup> 17:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)</small>
*:If I understand the [WP:GNG] correctly, then I need to show significance from reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. In the sciences Scopus is considered a reliable source of journal rankings that can show the significance of the journal. [https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/25518 Here is the CG&A page] - would that be ok? There is [https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_computergraphics a Google Scholar page of rankings for computer graphics journals] and CG&A is ranked 6th. To show significant coverage, the metrics on those pages show that the journal attracts authors and that the articles they publish are also frequently cited. Would it help to add these citations to prevent deletion of the page? [[User:Pisenberg|Pisenberg]] ([[User talk:Pisenberg|talk]]) 19:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
*::Hi @[[User:Pisenberg|Pisenberg]]. The problem with those is that they do not provide [[wp:sigcov|significant coverage]] of the journal. What exactly constitutes significant coverage is a bit ambiguous, but it requires at least some prose (not just data points) and at least some analysis (from the guideline: {{tq|"so that no original research is needed to extract the content"}}). Database entries like the ones provided here do not typically contribute to establishing notability under [[WP:GNG]].
*::As a small side note, it's not necessary to include sources in an article to establish notability through them. From [[WP:NEXIST]]: {{tq|Notability requires only the existence of suitable [...] sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article.}} So you don't need to worry about that aspect here. [[User:Actualcpscm|Actualcpscm]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Actualcpscm|scrutinize]], [[User talk:Actualcpscm#top|talk]]</sup> 20:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
'''Speedy close'''. The article was created a couple hours ago. As a first step, you have to place the "Notability" tag on the page, to give the creator chance to find more sources. No wonder you didnt find sources: google search is littered by irrelevant hits, and only an expert, who knowns where to look can find good sources. - [[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]]
:Newly created articles are checked for notability as part of [[WP:NPP]]. The creator stopped editing this page more than 6 hours ago, and I don't think the argument that it might be difficult to locate hypothetical sources actually does much to establish notability. [[User:Actualcpscm|Actualcpscm]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Actualcpscm|scrutinize]], [[User talk:Actualcpscm#top|talk]]</sup> 17:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
| |||