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

Revision as of 03:49, 27 October 2023

Revision as of 04:15, 27 October 2023

Line 52:

*:The previous close is located [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IEEE_Computer_Graphics_and_Applications&diff=prev&oldid=1181166754 here]. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 02:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. The journal is longstanding, has an impact factor, is listed in multiple selective indexing services, is among the top journals in its area and is published by a reputable organisation. I consider the inclusion in selective indexing services and the impact factor to meet GNG in this specialised case. The information is useful to readers, especially in terms of verifying the reliability of other articles whose references were published in this journal. I see no reason why removing this information benefits the encyclopedia or its readers. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 18:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:*With the new sources, there is now an obvious pass of GNG. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 04:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

*<s>'''Weak keep'''.</s> People here are arguing as if this is a referendum on NJOURNALS again (should journal indexes alone be enough for notability) 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)

**'''Keep'''. Updating my opinion after additional expansion and additional sourcing (especially a full paragraph about this journal in the new Ruller reference, and an entire published article in an unrelated magazine about the 1988 hologram cover) has made the pass of [[WP:GNG]] clearer to me. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)