Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
BilledMammal (talk | contribs) |
!Vote via XFD Participation tool |
||
Line 69:
*'''Delete or redirect''' does not pass the GNG. [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals)#RfC on notability criteria|There is no consensus]] to use NJOURNALS as a SNG, no matter how much its proponents would like to [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS|LOCALCONSENSUS]] their way into [[Mean Girls|making fetch a thing]]. --[[User:In actu|<span style="color: #0b0080">In actu (Guerillero)</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*:[[WP:VAGUEWAVE]]. This is a forum to discuss this specific journal and its sourcing, not to rehash stale battles about the sacred writ of our holy texts. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 20:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
* '''Redirect to [[List of IEEE publications]]''': fails [[WP:GNG]]. [https://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article/56/3/546/23662/A-Review-of-Information-Science-and-Computer Ruller 1993]'s coverage is 3 sentences long. [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Computer_Graphics_Manual/DX4YstV76c4C?gbpv=1&pg=PA21 Saloman 2011]'s coverage is 2 sentences long. Neither are [[WP:SIGCOV]]. I don't see anything else that is. The editors who are voting to keep, who appealed the earlier closure, and who voted to overturn and relist this, are all wasting a huge amount of editor time. Shame on you all, come up with an independent source longer than 3 sentences, get our guidelines changed, or let it go. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 00:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC) <!--VCB Levivich-->
| |||