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. LizRead!Talk! 23:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 17:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 20:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 17:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 18:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 22:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Sure NJournals is an essay, but I cite it because it explains clearly why I think this journal is notable. The indexing in three important, selective databases (Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, and MEDLINE) means that 3 different commissions of specialists have evaluated this journal and found it to be among the best in its field. There's a fourth commission involved, because this is also indexed in the highly-selective MEDLINE subset, Index Medicus. To me, that's enough to be included in WP. And if someone doesn't find this reasoning compelling enough, I appeal to WP:IAR: the encyclopedia definitely would be poorer if we start deleting journal articles like this one. --Randykitty (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[reply]
Keep, for reasons I've stated above. MikePotel (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 conflict-of-interest policy. Generally, that means declaring that you have a conflict of interest in this discussion or on your talk page. (User:Pisenberg, you may find reviewing WP:COI useful as well; based on your talk page declaration, you definitely have a COI for this topic.) Further, while 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[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[reply]
Good point, I changed my vote to a comment. Pisenberg (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep long-established journal, in the top half of its kind, easily passes WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And with doi:10.17723/aarc.56.3.yq85664055727271 "The IEEE's Computer Graphics and Applications magazine is published bi-monthly by the IEEE Computer Society. It focuses on imaging, computer modeling, and complex computer graphics. Recently the magazine has focused heavily on medical imaging. As archivists begin to confront the issues involved with managing and preserving multimedia records they will find this magazine especially useful for understanding both the technology and the ways it is used." as well as Solomon's "This popular publication... " this is a clear pass of GNG too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
I just gave it. I don't care that you disagree. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Headbomb: Per 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[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.
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[reply]
Comment 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[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[reply]
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. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the new sources, there is now an obvious pass of GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep. 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 here about the first hologram magazine cover; etc. I think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I continue to be on the fence. I think the original close was correct from a policy perspective; any Keep argument I made would have to be WP:ILIKEIT. I identified additional sources beyond those David Eppstein mentioned on the talk page a few days ago: Talk:IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications#Potential sources. However, I think the article falls short of WP:GNG. Suriname0 (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For any new contributors to this discussion, the original close was: "I have no objection to some content being merged over but we can't override notability requirements based on an essay that hasn't got wide community acceptance." Suriname0 (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't want to distract down a procedural rathole, but I don't really agree with this presentation of policy. There are reasons other than ILIKEIT to !vote keep here. SnowFire (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, I don't see a reason to vote keep other than ILIKEIT, which is what my comment said. Other keep arguments presented here are unconvincing to me. Suriname0 (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I say this as someone who is a fan of applying GNG very broadly, and thinking certain subject-specific notability guidelines were wildly overinclusive (e.g. the old NSPORTS one). However... while they're not that deep, sources do exist. And if there's ever an exception to GNG where a broader inclusion criteria is merited, it's precisely formal academia-esque stuff where the chances of getting gull'd by bored high schoolers or people promoting their business is very low. WP:NPROF is more inclusive than GNG partially to avoid getting razzed for a "Donna Strickland doesn't have an article" and journals are a close kin, so I'm fine with something like NJOURNALS being broader than GNG. This particular topic isn't a paper-mill journal or a completely minor journal, so seems fine to me. SnowFire (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, one that its supporters consistently refuse to try to get promoted to a guideline, which speaks volumes about the level of support it has among the broader community. Without an SNG we default back to WP:GNG, and this article clearly fails that criteria - to keep this article would be a clear WP:LOCALCONSENSUS violation. BilledMammal (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a personal favor to me, could you perhaps explain how the encyclopedia benefits from deleting this (and all other similarly-sourced academic/scientific journal articles)? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, scientific journals are not much different from other publications like popular magazines, where the publisher may wish to take advantage of Wikipedia to promote their product. Abuse of this sort is why we have actually had to go beyond GNG for such products and create WP:NCORP; going below GNG invites such abuse.
While the class this journal is in - not predatory, published by a significant non-profit organization - makes such a situation unlikely to apply, we don't make exceptions for organizations that we think are good generally, and we shouldn't make such exceptions here. Further, you did ask for all other similarly-sourced academic/scientific journal articles.
Second, this article isn't far off from a database; it provides a somewhat explanatory lede, referenced almost entirely to primary sources, and then provides a raw-data list of the editors and the bibliographic databases it is abstracted and indexed in. This is not an encyclopedic article, and based on the sources available never can be; it belongs in Wikidata, not Wikipedia.
However, this discussion doesn't really belong here; it belongs on an RfC proposing to promote NJOURNAL to a guideline - I would strongly encourage you to open one so that we can permanently resolve this question one way or the other. BilledMammal (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A regular point of confusion that I have around deletion discussions of academic journals is that this debate is really about whether to host this content in a stand-alone article. In this case, the current paragraph of text in the article (ignoring the list of prior editors and the list of databases that index it) is perfectly verifiable and seems WP:DUE to include essentially unaltered in List of IEEE publications (a notable list). So it doesn't seem like we're debating deletion of the content (which will still be on Wikipedia), but rather whether that content should be hosted in a stand-alone article versus in a list. Suriname0 (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What a bizarre claim. List of IEEE publications contains no text about any of these publications; it includes only the titles of the publications. What leads you to suggest that the detailed content of this article would be welcome in its entirety there? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for my lack of clarity! I'm saying that the best version of List of IEEE publications includes short descriptions after each of the listed publications. If another editor removed a descriptive summary of a source from List of IEEE publications on UNDUE grounds, I would revert them! If this discussion is closed as redirect, I would personally merge the stub info listed at the article into the list (shifting from bullet points to sub-headers). (And I suspect we could profitably write short summaries for several of the red-linked magazines as well.) Suriname0 (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
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. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
e journal has not received coverage by independent secondary sources. -- GuerilleroParlez Moi 19:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
False. You may reasonably disagree about what depth of coverage is appropriate, but claiming that the sources do not exist at all is so blatantly incorrect that it makes it appear you have not even looked at the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to List of IEEE publications: fails WP:GNG. Ruller 1993's coverage is 3 4 sentences long. 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 4 sentences, get our guidelines changed, or let it go. Levivich (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notice you didn't even mention the two-page magazine article entirely about the 1988 cover image. Cherry-picking much? Another newly added reference, Chen, Paul, & O'Keefe, is also almost entirely about the content of this journal (as a test case for the citation analysis proposed by the authors). Also, learn to count. Ruller is four sentences long, but one of those sentences is quite long (as long as the other three put together). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right, Ruller 1993 is 4 sentences, not 3. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the overall length of the coverage (even if one of the sentences is quite long), and so it doesn't change my opinion about Ruller 1993 not providing SIGCOV.
I can't access the 1989 Holosphere article, but based on your description of it, what it's cited for in the Wikipedia article, and a Google snippet, it appears to be an article about a hologram called "The Tin Toy" that appeared on the cover of IEEE CG&A, but not about CG&A itself. If the Holosphere article has SIGCOV -- like more than 4 sentences (however long) or one paragraph -- about CG&A itself (and not the hologram on the cover), maybe you can paste some excerpts here and we can take a look at it. If it's SIGCOV about CG&A, it would count towards GNG and we'd be halfway there.
Chen 2000, a conference paper published by IEEE, is probably not an independent source and so not GNG, but also doesn't have SIGCOV, as all it seems to say about CG&A is IEEE CG&A was launched in 1981 ... IEEE CG&A as a prestigious journal reflects significant aspects of computer graphics. Of course, it is not the only journal in the field. There are a vast amount of publications in the literature on this subject. and the rest is about a dataset of IEEE CG&A articles the author used to create an author co-citation map as an example of domain visualization (if I understood the paper correctly, which I probably didn't). Levivich (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"a conference paper published by IEEE"
The IEEE is an organization with a membership that's near a half million engineers in pretty much every country in the world. It is literally the most respected engineering society in the world. If you want to exclude IEEE papers from consideration, you're literally nixing 5 million publications, covering over nearly anywhere from a quarter to half the engineering papers in the world, from those that would be most qualified to write about these things in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thankfully that's not really an issue, since those 5 million IEEE publications don't usually spend any time writing about each other, so they're unlikely to be GNG sources for each other. But if editors can count 2 sentences as SIGCOV, I don't see why you can't count a conference paper presented at the IEEE Conference on Information Visualization as an independent source about IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. Levivich (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look at you twist to explain away in-depth sourcing, while simultaneously complaining about other people supposedly twisting GNG to produce a different outcome. You are not even addressing the paper I mentioned, "Chen, Paul, & O'Keefe" (not "Chen"), which is a journal paper from 2001 (not a conference paper from 2000) published by Wiley (not IEEE). I replaced my earlier choice of reference, Chen, with Chen, Paul, & O'Keefe, because it is more in-depth and doesn't even have a whiff of non-independence. The 2001 paper is almost entirely about publication patterns in CG&A. The authors may have intended to use CG&A as an example, but in producing that example they ended up doing an in-depth study of CG&A. And a paper about cover art of CG&A is a paper about CG&A. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you talking about a different paper than the one I linked to? Levivich (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chen Paul & O'Keefe. From the references in the current version of the article. Chen, Chaomei; Paul, Ray J.; O'Keefe, Bob (2001). "Fitting the jigsaw of citation: Information visualization in domain analysis". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 52 (4): 315–330. doi:10.1002/1532-2890(2000)9999:9999<::aid-asi1074>3.0.co;2-2. If you search the title on Google Scholar you'll find a freely readable link; I'm not sure whether it's piracy-free enough to link directly here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK I just looked at it. Like the others, it's a paper about domain visualization, it's not about CG&A, it just uses CG&A articles as a data set upon which to perform domain visualization. There are a lot of people who have downloaded Wikipedia articles and done all sorts of analyses on them and then published papers... those papers aren't SIGCOV of Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What it's intended to be about (a demonstration of a method of visualization) and what most of its content is actually about (a detailed analysis of publication patterns in CG&A) are two different things. We don't have to imagine the intent of the author to use what sources say. And yes, I would argue that those papers are SIGCOV of Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked at Nakazawa, too. It's another paper that uses CG&A articles as a data set for a study. It's not about CG&A, the publication, at all. Levivich (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. I see sigcov of the publication in the Chen, Paul & O'Keefe piece. Similarly, I see sigcov Nakazawa, Itoh & Saito. I'm unable to read the Holosphere piece, but coverage of a cover of a publication is coverage of the publication. By the above definition of sigcov, the 4 sentences in Ruller provide sigcov that can be summarized. The 2 sentences in Salomon provide sigcov that can be summarized.
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[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[reply]
And yes, I know that involves reformatting, and probably splitting, that target. If folks feel that's not viable, I'm back to weak keep by IAR. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have an idiosyncratic definition of "very stubby". To me, this article has already moved beyond start class to C class. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose so. It has 4 very short paragraphs, including the lede, of anything that's not filler. IMO that's pretty stubby, but I could see how others could disagree. Hobit (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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.