Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
+solomon |
BilledMammal (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 39:
:::What are the sources for that? Even if you claim that the two sentences you quote meet [[WP:SIGCOV]] (and I would argue that they don't), multiple sources are required - and unless you are somehow claiming that the even briefer "http://computer.org/cga is the home of IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, a bimonthly magazine that covers a variety of topics catering to both computer graphics practitioners and researchers. This popular publications bridges the theory and practice of computer graphics, from specific algorithms to full system implementations", which is included in a list of dozens of websites, counts towards GNG? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 23:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I just gave it. I don't care that you disagree.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 00:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Headbomb}} Per [[WP:TALK#REPLIED]], please don't edit your comments after others have replied to them, as you did {{diff2|1182078629|here}}; it can deprive replies of the context in which they are made and can mislead other editors. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 00:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:*'''Delete''', this does not appear to meet the GNG, which, unlike NJOURNALS, is an actual guideline. Passing mentions are not sufficient to establish notability for any other topics, and thus do not merit an article just because some editors consider "journals" to be inherently encyclopedic.
: [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 17:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
| |||