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 |
added my user name |
||
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. [[User:Pisenberg|Pisenberg]] ([[User talk:Pisenberg|talk]]) 16:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
| |||