IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: 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 ] 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 ] 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 [16] , "a technical journal that almost comes into the magazine category" [17] , or a monthly magazine [18] but without much detail that would help explain those labels.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:14, 14 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 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 ] 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 ] 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 ] 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 ] 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.  Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 00:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Headbomb : Per WP:TALK#REPLIED , please don't edit your comments after others have replied to them, as you did

Discussion outcome: no consensus