Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Randykitty (talk | contribs) cmt |
→IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: full merge. |
||
Line 92:
*'''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. —[[User:Siroxo|siro]][[User talk:Siroxo|''χ'']][[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 when doing so is equally helpful to the reader. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 19:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
| |||