Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here in this discussion and there are enough comments at this point about journals and notabiity that I don't think further relistings will clarify the divided opinion. I realize that this closure might be challenged again at DRV but I think that could happen with any possible closure decision (Keep, Delete, Redirect or Merge). Editors advocating a Merge or Redirect can continue this discussion on the article talk page but I think it is time to bring this discussion to a close. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:ATD. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:02, 13 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. -

>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. -
>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. -
>talk 18:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • It describes itself as a magazine, but the rest of the description (a "mix of opinion pieces and peer-reviewed research articles") sounds like Science or Nature, both of which we call "journals", not magazines. --Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "something of both" is also an accurate description of those: they have large amounts of editorial rather than peer-reviewed-research content (like a magazine not a journal), they are filled with ads (like a magazine not a journal), but they also have a big section of peer-reviewed research content that subscribers tend not to read (like a journal not a magazine). I would view the fact that our articles don't describe this more clearly as a bug, not as something to be emulated. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IEEE publishes both Transactions and Magazines. IEEE has a useful page where they define what they mean by the latter: https://magazines.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/get-started-with-ieee-magazines/about-ieee-magazines/. CG&A is about 2/3 peer-reviewed papers and 1/3 departments papers which are accepted after editor-review by department editors who are experts in their respective fields. The only ads in CG&A are conference announcements and calls for papers placed by IEEE. IEEE presently has 44 magazines (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IEEE_publications), and CG&A founded in 1981 is tied for fourth oldest, see https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/browse/periodicals/title. Twenty of these (21 if CG&A gets approved) have their own Wikipedia pages. MikePotel (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, for reasons I've stated above. MikePotel (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi User:MikePotel, welcome to Wikipedia.
    First, if you have a potential conflict of interest with this article topic (such as being a current or former editor for the publication), you should review the
    WP:COI
    does not explicitly require a user with a COI from voting in a related AFD discussion like this one, I would definitely recommend abstaining. (Participation in the discussion as in your comment above is fine, and in fact encouraged!)
    Second, you wrote "for reasons I've stated above", but it's not actually clear to me what reasons you're referring to. Would you mind clarifying? I think you might mean either (a) that CG&A is old compared to other IEEE magazines or (b) that IEEE is majority peer-reviewed. Suriname0 (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was unaware of the rules. I only meant to reply to the questions about what is an IEEE magazine, how much peer-review, etc. and tried to limit myself to factual data and references you might find useful. I added the vote to "Keep" the page as an afterthought, my bad. I think both reasons I gave are valid as is the fact that many similar pages have been approved, but I leave that up to all of you. MikePotel (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, I changed my vote to a comment. Pisenberg (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And with
b} 23:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
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? BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I just gave it. I don't care that you disagree.
b} 00:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:TALK#REPLIED, please don't edit your comments after others have replied to them, as you did here; it can deprive replies of the context in which they are made and can mislead other editors. BilledMammal (talk) 00:28, 27 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]
  • Perhaps you should have a look at that list, because it sounds like you haven't seen it. It contains 138 journals, 44 magazines, and 1 "other", for a total of 183 publications. Now imagine what that page is going to look like if we would merge articles into this. Given that a "short summary" should include essential info like scope, IF, editor-in-chief, frequency, year of establishment, and probably more, each with its references, that would make for quite a list. And now think of applying this "solution" to larger publishers like Wiley or Elsevier... --Randykitty (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suffice it to say, we have enough here to write a start class article about this subject by summarizing secondary sources, augmented with verifiable information from primary sources, and without original research. If we're truly concerned this magazine is being promoted here, we could remove any non-independent primary sourced claims and still be left with an article. —siroχo 03:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • full merge. I've gone back-and-forth on this more than I have on nearly anything in a while. I don't think this meets the sourcing requirements of WP:N. The coverage is much closer to "in passing" than to "significant" IMO. That said, we do have a notion that some topics are more intrinsically notable than others (see WP:CORP for example) and our bar for inclusion should vary a bit because of that. To me, this is the type of thing we should be covering if the sources come close. And I'd push for this to be its own article if I felt that was the best way to present the information. But I think a more-or-less full merge (maybe not the editors-in-chief list) of the article into List of IEEE publications is just as good as this article is very stubby and, given the dearth sources, really can't be more than that. Honestly I'm fine with a keep also, and I had an IAR keep argument written out but then changed my mind as I think we should stay inside of our guidelines and not use IAR unless doing so is clearly more helpful to the reader. Hobit (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit: I really can't see how merge would work in this instance? List of IEEE publications has hundreds of publications, with no text about any of them. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as I thought about it more I reached the conclusion it would be a major change and so maybe a keep is better. But I think a bare list, as we have now, is a bit useless. I'd think we could do something like a "list of episodes" thing and split magazines from journals. Still a long list, but not a crazy one. Include years active, how often it's published and some details about each one (say under 500 words). Given that is such a huge change, I do think that a keep is probably the right answer for now. Hobit (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was presumably just to list blue links, but few editors are masochistic enough to bother systematically creating articles on academic journals at present. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like User:Hobit, I believe this is quite possible. If the text of List of IEEE publications gets too long, it can be broken down by publication type (e.g. journals, magazines) and subsequently field (EE, SE, etc.). Suriname0 (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What advantage would this have over just having separate articles for each publication? Lumping stuff together doesn't really improve notability (because now you have to find sources about the whole collection, not necessarily easier than finding sources about the individual members) and doesn't help readers find information about individual publications (for instance when following links to those publications from references on other articles). So who benefits from it? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Benefit is that the publications that don't meet WP:N would have a place to have basic info. I think that's an improvement. Hobit (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's much easier to show notability for the collection; in searching for sources discussing CG&A, I found several nice sources discussing e.g. the history of IEEE computer graphics publications, or the history of IEEE magazines. All the big publishers seem to attract coverage in a way that individual journals rarely do. Anyway, it benefits readers if it prevents fragmentation of information and provides context on under-covered (aka non-notable) topics, as Hobit says. But benefit is the crux of the issue, right? There are lots of non-notable topics that would benefit readers if we covered them in stand-alone articles, cf. the on-going debates about sport bios, or Google Chrome version history, etc. I think Wikipedia is probably worse if we allowed thousands of non-notable trade publications to put up a free marketing page, and I think Wikipedia is probably better if we allowed thousands of non-notable academic publications to put up a free marketing page. It's not a surprise I'm biased in favor of the academic journals and think they're useful, but until we have a policy that reflects a consensus beyond my personal biases in favor of academics, I'm reticent to explicitly endorse it. Suriname0 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could add those sources to List of IEEE publications, to demonstrate that it is actually notable as a list and viable as a merge target. Currently it only has non-independent sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IEEE_Computer_Graphics_and_Applications&oldid=1297787090"