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 delete. Sandstein 09:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not a single article published yet (first issue expected to be published in 2017!!) Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation way too soon." Article dePRODded by DGG with reason "Alll IEEE transactions turn out to be notable. They are the core literature of the subject". This is a rare case where I disagree with DGG. This journal does not really even exist yet, the first articles are expected to be published in 2017. It's categorized as "Publications established in 2016", for the sole reason that it would be too weird to categorize something as "Publications to be established next year"... There is no way of knowing whether this journal will actually come into being or whether it will actually turn out to become "core literature of the subject". Therefore, PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Randykitty, is there any existing IEEE transactions that you would not consider notable? If they all are, and this is like the many others, then it's a reasonable induction that doesn't require guesswork. I suppose it might get renamed, but if so we can change the title. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know. I haven't gone through our category of IEEE journals (nor do I know that we actually have articles on each and every IEEE journal. However, even assuming that every IEEE journal published up till now has become notable, that is not a guarantee that this will become notable, too. Likely, sure. Certain? No. The argument that this one is notable because other journals of the same publisher are notable is a prime case of WP:INHERITED. The journal doesn't even exist yet! --Randykitty (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete I endorsed the proposed deletion for this article, but think that both Randykitty and DGG make good points. I agree with DGG that IEEE Transactions are core journals in electrical engineering. It doesn't take much of a crystal ball to believe that this journal will eventually become notable. But at the same time, while there is minimal secondary sourcing for the journal announcement [1], I have found no independent RS for the journal itself. A compromise might be to keep a placeholder redirect to a short mention of the journal announcement at the associated Society article, IEEE Computational Intelligence Society#Publications. Otherwise, there just isn't the independent sourcing available, either in the indexes or generally, to support a standalone article at this time. --Mark viking (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In Wikipedia's voice, we learn here that this journal is "opening doors to a plethora of exciting opportunities". At Wikipedia, we don't have to guess about the future, we can wait for it. Given that there are no sources, this is a worthless article, that must be rewritten once sources are available, so there is nothing lost by deletion. There is even a BLP problem by referring to a living person without an inline citation. Fails WP:DEL7 with WP:IAR added as WP:V is a core content policy, and WP:DEL14 for what Wikipedia is not. Unscintillating (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2016 (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.