Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 80:
*:::::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)
*'''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.
| |||