Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Comment |
|||
Line 48:
*'''Weak keep'''. People here are arguing as if this is a referendum on NJOURNALS again (do journal indexes count as SIGCOV) but that doesn't need to be the beginning or end of the discussion. This article provides reliably sourced (if not independently sourced) information bringing it well above stub class, such as the table of editors in chief. That doesn't contribute to GNG notability, and I'm unconvinced that its indexing is enough by itself despite [[WP:NJOURNALS]], but I do think that the indexing is contributory to notability. Beyond that I think the published books with descriptions of this journal/magazine, although generally brief, also contribute. We need to apply common sense and factor out two different purposes of GNG: (1) Is this significant enough to have an article? For this, independence of sourcing is necessary but the indexing and book sources all contribute. (2) Do we have enough reliably-sourced material to get a real article out of the sources? For this, reliable but non-independent sources can be used. We do have multiple sources for (1): Not just the indexes, but also books including Lewell's ''A-Z Guide to Computer Graphics'' (1985): "Computer Graphics and Applications is a monthly journal that almost comes into the magazine category ..."; several books by David Salomon including ''Curves and Surfaces for Computer Graphics'' (2007) "Computer Graphics and Applications is a technical journal carrying research papers and news ..."; "Status Report on the User Interface Magazine" (1991), {{doi|10.1145/122488.1048032}}, reporting some behind-the-scenes financing of this journal as background for the status of a different journal; a note [http://www.digicamhistory.com/1988.html here] about the first hologram magazine cover; etc. I think that's enough. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I continue to be on the fence. I think the original close was correct from a policy perspective; any Keep argument I made would have to be [[WP:ILIKEIT]]. I identified additional sources beyond those David Eppstein mentioned on the talk page a few days ago: [[Talk:IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications#Potential sources]]. However, I think the article falls short of [[WP:GNG]]. [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 20:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:For any new contributors to this discussion, the original close was: "I have no objection to some content being merged over but we can't override notability requirements based on an essay that hasn't got wide community acceptance." [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 20:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
| |||