Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Closed as no consensus (XFDcloser) |
m Fix Linter errors. |
||
Line 83:
* '''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.  <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)
| |||