Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 77:
*::::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)
*::::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)
*: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)
*'''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.
| |||