Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges

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 keep. Clearly no great urgency on the part of the community to delete this article. A Train^talk 20:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This journal is a long-standing journal in the relatively new field of computer science education. The Journal is indexed by several highly recognized services in computer science (in which ACM is arguably the top professional organization). The journal has significant coverage in Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search, including journal articles with hundreds of citations. This journal is second in importance only to the top journal in the field, the ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. This information was not available in the original version of the article, and has been added to address the concerns raised. I believe these improvements address both WP:GNG demonstrating coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject and WP:NJournals in that coverage by various Association for Computing Machinery services (ACM is among the most prestigious professional organizations in the field of computer science), demonstrate that it is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as established by reliable sources. The speedy deletion notice itself includes "Scholar" as a way to search for external coverage - a quick search lists over 10,000 hits. (Some of us academics live in Google Scholar. In the field of computer science especially, it is a very important search engine (comparable to some other notable sites that focus more on the humanities, law, etc.) Cypherquest (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody says GScholar is not an important tool. So is Google. But for an academic journal being indexed in GScholar (or Microsoft Academic Search) is just as meaningful as my personal Facebook page being "indexed" in Google. And if this is indeed the second journal in its field, then it should be easy to find reliable sources that confirm this. As for all those hits, please see WP:GHITS. This misses WP:NJournals and I'm not even going to start with GNG, which is quite a bit harsher. --Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's indexed by ACM, one of the most recognized professional organizations in computer science. Their Digital Library is a significant, reliable, widely-used source for computing science information. A variety of projects are working on improving the coverage of computer science and academic publication articles (e.g., ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems. I think we can ask for more help, rather than requesting deletion. I'll add the compu-journal-stub tag.Cypherquest(talk) 20:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• A quick search shows the CCSC conferences get covered by notable institutions including Harvard University, UC San Diego and others - keynote speakers include Program Directors from the National Science Foundation. With SIGs, the journal and the conference are often highly linked (sometimes, the naming is so similar, we've had to rename SIG and Conf in Wikipedia to be consistent. Cypherquest (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has a heavy coverage in a number of areas. I think it is probably easily notable from coverage alone. scope_creep (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ?? Which coverage? Any links? --Randykitty (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Here's an example of third party academic coverage (UCDavis): https://cse.ucsd.edu/about/news/cse-hosts-computer-science-education-conference-uc-san-diego Cypherquest (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm sorry, but I cannot find any mention of the journal in that link... --Randykitty (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My apologies, I'm not taking time to explain this well for other experts. In computer science, unlike some other academic fields, the conferences are important, and often synonymous with the proceedings. This is just one example of independent coverage of the conference from which the journal proceedings originate.Cypherquest (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for clarifying that this is not about the journal. --Randykitty (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have found a number of books referencing different editions of the journal | here, | here etc. More can be found in google books. Maybe this is not a major journal, but it is certainly notable. I have also found some articles on Google scholar that the articles from the journal have been cited | multiple times. Maybe this is not the most important journal out there but it seems notable enough for WP:NJournals.--Wikishagnik (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As far as I can see, some articles published in the journal get cited, but there is no coverage of the journal itself. So we have zero independent sources verifying the notability of this journal. Some citations to a journal are to be expected, but don't make it notable in the sense of NJournals (and even less in the sense of GNG). --Randykitty (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Outside the coverage on academic (.edu) sites mentioned above, Computing Now includes a reference in this June 2017 IoT article, alongside references to IEEE publications, Harvard Educational Rev. and others. https://www.computer.org/web/computingnow/archive/iot-for-21st-century-learners-june-2017-introduction.Cypherquest (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That's just another in-passing mention, not saying anything about the journal itself. As I have explained several times, some citations to articles in the journal are to be expected and do not indicate notability. What we need is coverage of the journal itself. --Randykitty (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here's a link to SIGCSE, one of the most widely-recognized professional organizations for computer science education recommending the journal alongside other notable publications in this area: http://sigcse.org/sigcse/resources/publish.^[1] This is a valuable, notable, peer-reviewed scientific journal; deleting the article from Wikipedia seems inconsistent with our standards.Cypherquest (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If this is indeed a "valuable, notable" journal, there should be sources that confirm this. Apparently it's not valuable or notable enough to get included in any selective database. Including an article on a subject for which notability cannot be shown isn't directly consistent with our standards either... --Randykitty (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: ACM SIGCSE is an outstanding source for high-quality research and information in the area of Computer Science Education. The deletion notice (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) lists sources to search to determine notability, which have been very useful as discussed above. An academic administrator might be expecting coverage in Web of Science or Scopus. These are tremendously valuable resources in many fields. WoS covers many (but not all) notable sources in sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities. They are especially good in established areas - but there are limitations in their use as the sole way to establish notability.^[2] These sources are not yet the best gauge for Computer Science Education; not appearing in them is not an indication that a journal is not valuable or notable.^[3][4] Cypherquest (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2017 (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.