Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Gave my comments about why I think the page should be kept given the WP:NJournals criteria |
|||
Line 11:
*::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)
*:::It should be noted that this is a scientific peer-reviewed magazine. A magazine's notability is proofed by citations and journal rankings. You can think of a scientific citation as a way in which scientific publications talk about the content in other publications. It's relatively rare to find externals sources such as newspaper articles or books that talk about a scientific magazine as an entity - they will take about individual pieces of content via citations. The fact that CG&A is highly ranked in computer graphics and has a high number of citations means that people read the magazine and write about its content - and as such that it is notable in the scientific community. [[User:Pisenberg|Pisenberg]] ([[User talk:Pisenberg|talk]]) 21:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*::::Apart from citations I can also find university pages that announced
<s>'''Speedy close'''.</s>'''Keep'''. A major publication in the area. 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)
Line 32:
*'''Comment''' - If consensus is not to keep this article, should be redirected to [[List of IEEE publications]] as an [[WP:ATD]]. I'll take a look at whether this article meets [[WP:GNG]] myself to vote later. [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 22:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
** You probably meant to revert to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IEEE_Computer_Graphics_and_Applications&oldid=739112436 last known good version]. - [[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 04:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Hi everyone, this is my first Wikipedia page creation and I am learning a lot from this conversation here. Thank you all. I now checked the [[WP:NJOURNALS]] which matches my intuitive understanding of notability for research journals (which CG&A falls under, given it's primarily peer-reviewed content). The page cites 3 criteria and says "The most typical way of satisfying C1 is to show that the journal is included in selective citation indices" (we now have this content on the page) the page also mentions that having an h-index counts (which is in the infobox), C2 is satisfied because CG&A is a listed in many bibliographic databases and indexing services like [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog?term=%22IEEE+Comput+Graph+Appl%22%5BTitle+Abbreviation%5D The National Library of Medicine], [https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/25518 Scopus]. [https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_computergraphics Google Scholar]. If two criteria are satisfied the journal should be considered notable.
| |||