Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 75:
*:::"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)
*::::Thankfully that's not really an issue, since those 5 million IEEE publications don't usually spend any time writing about each other, so they're unlikely to be GNG sources for each other. But if editors can count 2 sentences as SIGCOV, I don't see why you can't count a conference paper presented at the IEEE Conference on Information Visualization as an independent source about IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::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)
*: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)
| |||