Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:24, 27 October 2023

Latest revision as of 14:04, 28 June 2025

(24 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)

Line 1:

<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed archived mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

===[[:IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications]]===

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}}

<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''no consensus'''‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. 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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

===[[:IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications]]===

<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>

:{{la|1=IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 25#{{anchorencode:IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1179938576/cur|edits since nomination]])

Line 68 ⟶ 73:

**: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 [[WP:V|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. [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 16:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

**::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? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

**:::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.) [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 14:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

*:::::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... --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 08:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Delete or redirect''' does not pass the GNG. [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals)#RfC on notability criteria|There is no consensus]] to use NJOURNALS as a SNG, no matter how much its proponents would like to [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS|LOCALCONSENSUS]] their way into [[Mean Girls|making fetch a thing]]. --[[User:In actu|<span style="color: #0b0080">In actu (Guerillero)</span>]] ^{[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]} 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

*:[[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. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 20:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

*::e journal has not received coverage by independent secondary sources. -- [[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] ^{[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]} 19:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

*:::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. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 20:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

* '''Redirect to [[List of IEEE publications]]''': fails [[WP:GNG]]. [https://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article/56/3/546/23662/A-Review-of-Information-Science-and-Computer Ruller 1993]'s coverage is <del>3</del> <ins>4</ins> sentences long. [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Computer_Graphics_Manual/DX4YstV76c4C?gbpv=1&pg=PA21 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 <del>3</del> <ins>4</ins> sentences, get our guidelines changed, or let it go. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 00:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC) <!--VCB Levivich-->

*: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). —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 00:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

*::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. <p>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. </p><p>[https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/859766 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 {{tqq|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). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 02:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)</p>

*:::"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. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 04:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Line 78 ⟶ 89:

*:::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. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 05:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

*::::Are you talking about a different paper than the one I linked to? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

*:::::Chen Paul & O'Keefe. From the references in the current version of the article. {{cite journal|last1=Chen|first1=Chaomei|last2=Paul|first2=Ray J.|last3=O'Keefe|first3=Bob|doi=10.1002/1532-2890(2000)9999:9999<::aid-asi1074>3.0.co;2-2|issue=4|journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology|pages=315–330|title=Fitting the jigsaw of citation: Information visualization in ___domain analysis|volume=52|year=2001}} 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. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 05:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

*::::::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. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

*:::::::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. [[The Death of the Author|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. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 05:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

*:I looked at [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12650-018-0483-5 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. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 03:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

*::[[No true Scotsman]]. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 05:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

*:::I'm sorry to disagree with you again, but I know at least [[User:Girth Summit|one true Scotsman]]. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. {{tq|"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. &mdash;[[User:Siroxo|siro]][[User talk:Siroxo|''&chi;'']][[Special:Contributions/Siroxo|o]] 03:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''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. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 19:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

**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. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 19:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

**:You have an idiosyncratic definition of "very stubby". To me, this article has already moved beyond start class to C class. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 20:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

**::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. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 03:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

:::{{u|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. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 22:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

::::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. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 23:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::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. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 23:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

::::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.). [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 23:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::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? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 00:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::::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. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 15:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

::::::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 [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination)|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. [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 16:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::::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. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 17:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>