Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MikePotel (talk | contribs) at 20:04, 17 October 2023 (→IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this journal is notable on its own; I could not find sufficient secondary sources that discuss it directly to establish notability under WP:GNG. The previous redirect would be a good WP:ATD. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Computing. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand the [WP:GNG] correctly, then I need to show significance from reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. In the sciences Scopus is considered a reliable source of journal rankings that can show the significance of the journal. Here is the CG&A page - would that be ok? There is a Google Scholar page of rankings for computer graphics journals and CG&A is ranked 6th. To show significant coverage, the metrics on those pages show that the journal attracts authors and that the articles they publish are also frequently cited. Would it help to add these citations to prevent deletion of the page? Pisenberg (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Pisenberg. The problem with those is that they do not provide significant coverage of the journal. What exactly constitutes significant coverage is a bit ambiguous, but it requires at least some prose (not just data points) and at least some analysis (from the guideline: "so that no original research is needed to extract the content"). Database entries like the ones provided here do not typically contribute to establishing notability under WP:GNG.
    As a small side note, it's not necessary to include sources in an article to establish notability through them. From WP:NEXIST: Notability requires only the existence of suitable [...] sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. So you don't need to worry about that aspect here. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 20:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that this is a scientific peer-reviewed magazine. A magazine's notability is proofed by citations and journal rankings. You can think of a scientific citation as a way in which scientific publications talk about the content in other publications. It's relatively rare to find externals sources such as newspaper articles or books that talk about a scientific magazine as an entity - they will take about individual pieces of content via citations. The fact that CG&A is highly ranked in computer graphics and has a high number of citations means that people read the magazine and write about its content - and as such that it is notable in the scientific community. Pisenberg (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from citations I can also find university pages that announced proudly about their faculty receiving awards from cg&a (here or here ) Pisenberg (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close.Keep. A major publication in the area. The article was created a couple hours ago. As a first step, you have to place the "Notability" tag on the page, to give the creator chance to find more sources. No wonder you didnt find sources: google search is littered by irrelevant hits, and only an expert, who knowns where to look can find good sources. - Altenmann >talk

Newly created articles are checked for notability as part of WP:NPP. The creator stopped editing this page more than 6 hours ago, and I don't think the argument that it might be difficult to locate hypothetical sources actually does much to establish notability. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is not about notability, but about giving people a leeway in editing. "6 hours ago" is poor argument: we all have a real life, you know. Therefore in my times it was polite to give a full day for a response. Not all editors are experts in our notability guideline, so you should give them a slack if it is not an outright nonsense or shameless promo. Personally I didnt find it notable, therefore I created this page as a redirect a long time ago. - Altenmann >talk 18:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, but there is plenty of time to discuss the issue at AfD; after all, that's what it's for. Nominating at AfD, at least to me, just means to create a space for a focussed discussion regarding deletion. It does not pass a final judgement on notability. Regarding notifying the creator, I do admit that that's an oversight on my part; the Page Curation script automatically notifies the original creator, in this case you. I should have notified the editor who expanded it from a redirect, thanks for taking care of that yourself. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 18:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Heck, you even didnt bother to notify the page author about this discussion. A nice boot welcome to a newcomer. - Altenmann >talk 18:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That the artcile was only recently created is of no importance, so a speedy close for that reason is out of the question. The AfD will run for 7 days, providing ample time to improve the article, if possible (which it is, see below). It might have been better to create it as a draft, but that's moot now. In any case, MIAR reports that this journal (not a magazine) is indexed in a number of important, selective databases (Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, and MEDLINE), so this is a clear meet of WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Randykitty NJOURNALS is an essay, it doesn‘t have the broad consensus behind it that supports notability guidelines; the journal needs to meet GNG, and entries in selective databases are not GNG sources. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 22:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:1Q. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, this is my first Wikipedia edit. Next time I will create a draft. Thank you for helping to make the page better! Pisenberg (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a kind of topic that I expect to find when I open an encyclopedia, it's distinct enough from related topics to warrant a page of its own, and we have the information to write about it. Nor is it a fringe journal; there is no risk of giving a pseudoscientific/crankish publication more respectability than it deserves. XOR'easter (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This meets the standard of "something I have heard of outside Wikipedia", so I'd like to argue for keeping it, but of course that's not actually a Wikipedia notability standard. It would be helpful if we could at least get enough depth of sourcing to clarify whether this is a trade magazine, a peer-reviewed journal, one or the other at different times in its history, or something of both. I can find books calling it a technical journal [1], "a technical journal that almost comes into the magazine category" [2], or a monthly magazine [3] but without much detail that would help explain those labels. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
JoelleJay (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Suriname0 (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 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 The National Library of Medicine, Scopus. Google Scholar. If two criteria are satisfied the journal should be considered notable. Pisenberg (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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 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 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 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 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! Suriname0 (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IEEE_Computer_Graphics_and_Applications&oldid=1180622706"