Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:38, 19 October 2023

Revision as of 06:39, 19 October 2023

Line 38:

*'''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)

*'''KeepComment''' 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)

*:Hi [[User:Pisenberg]], as others have said, welcome to Wikipedia. I want to take a second to provide a little more context for you about why this article is (unintentionally!) controversial. [[WP:NJOURNALS]] is an [[Wikipedia:Essays|essay]]: "The purpose of an essay is to aid or comment on the encyclopedia but not on any unrelated causes. Essays have no official status and do not speak for the Wikipedia community because they may be created and edited without overall community oversight." In other words, essays try to fill out ambiguities and alternative perspectives on [[WP:POLICY|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]]. In the case of most article deletion discussions (and as is the case here), the most relevant guideline for determining if a topic should have a stand-alone Wikipedia article is [[Wikipedia:Notability]]. In particular, [[WP:GNG]] (as mentioned by the nominator, JoelleJay, and myself above) tells us that "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That helps us understand the claims made in the [[WP:NJOURNALS]] essay, which articulates a series of criteria that it argues comprise significant coverage. But, the essay is very controversial! Many editors disagree that the criteria in this essay are reasonable (which is why it is an essay and not a guideline). See [[Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals)#RfC_on_notability_criteria|this recent contentious discussion]] on the essay's talk page.

*:In the case of this page, you've stumbled precisely into the most controversial case: an article that seems not to meet [[WP:GNG]] (a guideline), but does meet the criteria in [[WP:NJOURNALS]] (an essay). Arguments for keeping include (a) that the article ''does'' meet [[WP:GNG]] after all (such as via the criteria in [[WP:NJOURNALS]]) or (b) that having this stand-alone article improves the encyclopedia, so we should [[WP:IAR|ignore all rules]] and keep this article despite the fact that it doesn't meet [[WP:GNG]]. Perhaps obviously, both of these types of arguments are controversial (because ultimately it means holding articles like this to a lower or different standard than other articles). Hope this is useful context! [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 16:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)