Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Greg Turk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Coredesat 07:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Greg Turk
- Template:La – (View log)
Prod tagged twice, redirected and brought back. This associate prof is best "known" for being the junior developer of the Stanford Bunny and would no doubt be embarassed to learn that he has a Wikipedia page. Somebody at Georgia Tech seems to be creating numerous pages on professors and departments without being aware of Wikipedia's notability requirements. No outside sources demonstrating that he passes the very high bar of WP:PROF are provided. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Google Scholar [1] finds papers with 627, 576, 464, 309, 275, 238, 235, 222 & 216 citations, with a further 5 papers >100 citations, and a further 7 papers >50 citations. On several of these he is the first or second author. Highly cited research meets WP:PROF point 3. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where do you see these numbers of citations? I'm using WebofKnowledge, and getting much lower numbers. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, these are mostly conferences; posters and talks and so forth. These are hard to verify. As far as the other 5 points of Wikipedia:Notability (academics), I'll bet donuts to dollars he fails. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not my area at all, so my ideas of citation rates might be off, but even for review type publications >200 citations is a lot. As to the precise WP:PROF criteria, he certainly meets point 5 for originating a new concept; point 1 also seems likely from the high citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I read it, WP:PROF requires that reliable third-party sources make the claims of points 1 and 2. Point 5 requires multiple non-trivial mentions in review articles. As for point 3, the number of times he gets cited must be more than the other folks in his field, which seems citation-happy to me. AnteaterZot (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Re "oh, those are mostly conferences": in computer science in general, one publishes primarily in conferences, with a journal version later as a more archival record, but in computer graphics, this is taken to an extreme: one publishes only in conferences. If one has a paper in SIGGRAPH or Eurographics, it is not acceptable to then publish the same results in a journal: the conference is considered archival. These conference publications are highly selective and are considered much more important than the journals (such as ACM Trans. Graphics or Computer Graphics Forum). Web of Science has very bad coverage of this whole area, because of its emphasis on journals vis-a-vis conferences: it doesn't know about the conference publications and it doesn't know about the citations from other conference publications. Google Scholar is a much more appropriate choice. And as for WP:PROF, only one point need be satisfied, though it appears that Turk satisfies more than one. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question So, are you asserting that his publication record is much better than his peers? AnteaterZot (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- WP:WAX. We shouldn't be questioning whether the record is better than certain other people (and how many peers would it have to be worse than, in how broad a subject area, to make him unnotable?), we should be questioning whether he is himself notable. But since you asked, I found this list of graphics researchers which happens to include him and seems like a pretty representative set of peers to compare him to (its length is a reasonable number of names to include in Wikipedia, I think, and anyway it's of comparable length to Category:Computer graphics professionals). I tried searching the first dozen or so names on the list in Google scholar, and Turk seems very much to fit with the rest; he doesn't stand out as being either significantly better or worse than them. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm trying to interpret the guidelines given at WP:PROF. About 1 in 1000 adults in the US is a college professor, so we have to be sure on notability. And you're saying he's average. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is a blatant misinterpretation of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that someone in Hong Kong took the trouble to make a list of the top computer graphics researchers, Turk was one of them, and the evidence indicates that he deserves his position on that list. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Hong Kong source doesn't say "top" anywhere, it is just a list. Maybe they're his friends or something. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fine. Since you won't believe what I find, make a list yourself of the top researchers in graphics, of similar length to Category:Computer graphics professionals, or use Category:Computer graphics professionals itself, do the Google scholar searches yourself, and tell me how he stacks up. I'm trying to remain civil here, but your disingenuity is making it difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The other guys in that category have authored books and have patents or awards. One I just glanced at won an Academy Award for CGI. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Which are enough to pass WP:PROF, but not the only way to pass it. I started doing the same Google Scholar comparison for the other members of that category, but got bored after the first few. Author, number of papers with over 100 citations (Google scholar search, restricted to Engineering, CS, and Math): Abel, 0. Akeley, 4. Apodaca, 0. Bezier, 1. Blinn, 6. Carpenter, 5. Catmull, 5. Clark, 15. Cook, 6. Crow, 3. Csuri, 0. Remember, for comparison: Turk, 14. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's a caveat (#5) about relying on Google Scholar WP:PROF page. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. It says that Google Scholar works well for computer science, less well for other fields. Fortunately, we are looking at computer scientists here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- And it says older works won't even show up. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, then, it's mistaken. Older works show up just fine. What doesn't show up is older citations. But in this case even that's a red herring, because the whole ACM back library is included. Look, if you're trying to insinuate that there's something untrustworthy about Turk's citation record, can you say more explicitly what it is? If there were missing data, it would only make him look better. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Older sitations don't show up for the other guys, maybe. Given that Turk has been doing all that publishing and getting all those citations, I would like to know what he has been doing. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, then, it's mistaken. Older works show up just fine. What doesn't show up is older citations. But in this case even that's a red herring, because the whole ACM back library is included. Look, if you're trying to insinuate that there's something untrustworthy about Turk's citation record, can you say more explicitly what it is? If there were missing data, it would only make him look better. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- And it says older works won't even show up. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. It says that Google Scholar works well for computer science, less well for other fields. Fortunately, we are looking at computer scientists here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's a caveat (#5) about relying on Google Scholar WP:PROF page. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Which are enough to pass WP:PROF, but not the only way to pass it. I started doing the same Google Scholar comparison for the other members of that category, but got bored after the first few. Author, number of papers with over 100 citations (Google scholar search, restricted to Engineering, CS, and Math): Abel, 0. Akeley, 4. Apodaca, 0. Bezier, 1. Blinn, 6. Carpenter, 5. Catmull, 5. Clark, 15. Cook, 6. Crow, 3. Csuri, 0. Remember, for comparison: Turk, 14. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The other guys in that category have authored books and have patents or awards. One I just glanced at won an Academy Award for CGI. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fine. Since you won't believe what I find, make a list yourself of the top researchers in graphics, of similar length to Category:Computer graphics professionals, or use Category:Computer graphics professionals itself, do the Google scholar searches yourself, and tell me how he stacks up. I'm trying to remain civil here, but your disingenuity is making it difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Hong Kong source doesn't say "top" anywhere, it is just a list. Maybe they're his friends or something. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is a blatant misinterpretation of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that someone in Hong Kong took the trouble to make a list of the top computer graphics researchers, Turk was one of them, and the evidence indicates that he deserves his position on that list. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm trying to interpret the guidelines given at WP:PROF. About 1 in 1000 adults in the US is a college professor, so we have to be sure on notability. And you're saying he's average. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- WP:WAX. We shouldn't be questioning whether the record is better than certain other people (and how many peers would it have to be worse than, in how broad a subject area, to make him unnotable?), we should be questioning whether he is himself notable. But since you asked, I found this list of graphics researchers which happens to include him and seems like a pretty representative set of peers to compare him to (its length is a reasonable number of names to include in Wikipedia, I think, and anyway it's of comparable length to Category:Computer graphics professionals). I tried searching the first dozen or so names on the list in Google scholar, and Turk seems very much to fit with the rest; he doesn't stand out as being either significantly better or worse than them. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question So, are you asserting that his publication record is much better than his peers? AnteaterZot (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not my area at all, so my ideas of citation rates might be off, but even for review type publications >200 citations is a lot. As to the precise WP:PROF criteria, he certainly meets point 5 for originating a new concept; point 1 also seems likely from the high citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- (arbitrary unindent) More specifically than computer graphics? That Hong Kong page that you didn't like says reaction-diffusion and surface reconstruction. Or you could look at the titles of his highly cited papers... —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The best way to be sure that those topics are something he is known for would be a would be a review paper saying something like "Turk's pioneering work on X," or a huge grant for a topic he owns, or semething from a national newspaper or magazine mentioning his contributions. Something from the secondary or tertiary literature attesting to his noteworthiness. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, these are mostly conferences; posters and talks and so forth. These are hard to verify. As far as the other 5 points of Wikipedia:Notability (academics), I'll bet donuts to dollars he fails. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where do you see these numbers of citations? I'm using WebofKnowledge, and getting much lower numbers. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Very well known graphics researcher. 14 papers with over 100 citations each, a very impressive citation record. Several of the best cited papers are single-author. Chair of SIGGRAPH, the most important graphics conference. It does seem that, at least as of a couple of years ago, he is or was associate rather than full; if so, I have no idea what his department is thinking, because his publication record and time since degree looks like that of a full professor to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe the fact that he is still an associate prof means that his own Dept knows more than you do? I cannot just accept your word that he is notable; where are the sources? AnteaterZot (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Are you denying that he has that many papers with that many citations, or that he is the chair of SIGGRAPH'08? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neither, of course. What WP:PROF says is that there must be reliable sources that explicitly state that the body of work is notable. If no such sources exist, then you can't claim he passes points 1 or 2. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It says no such thing. It says there should be sources that show that he's notable. That's not the same as having a source containing the exact sentence "Greg Turk meets the notability standard for inclusion in Wikipedia." There are sources: the thousands of papers that cite his. Collectively, they show that his body of work is significant and well known (WP:PROF #4), and that his specific highly-cited papers are significant and well-known (WP:PROF #3). Additionally, his selection as technical chair for SIGGRAPH indicates that he is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area (WP:PROF #1). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Saying it vehemently doesn't make it so. And using strawman arguments is uncool. I'll leave it others to read the article, look at the various guidelines and policies and weigh our arguments. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It says no such thing. It says there should be sources that show that he's notable. That's not the same as having a source containing the exact sentence "Greg Turk meets the notability standard for inclusion in Wikipedia." There are sources: the thousands of papers that cite his. Collectively, they show that his body of work is significant and well known (WP:PROF #4), and that his specific highly-cited papers are significant and well-known (WP:PROF #3). Additionally, his selection as technical chair for SIGGRAPH indicates that he is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area (WP:PROF #1). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neither, of course. What WP:PROF says is that there must be reliable sources that explicitly state that the body of work is notable. If no such sources exist, then you can't claim he passes points 1 or 2. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Are you denying that he has that many papers with that many citations, or that he is the chair of SIGGRAPH'08? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe the fact that he is still an associate prof means that his own Dept knows more than you do? I cannot just accept your word that he is notable; where are the sources? AnteaterZot (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This is obviously not a great article but Turk is one of the biggest names in the field of computer graphics. MaxVeers (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - A published academic and notable in his field; he's technical papers chair for SIGGRAPH 2008, after all. "Embarrassed" about having a Wikipedia article? The guy should be proud. — X S G 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Listed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Eppstein. Tparameter (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Eppstein. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Turk is a notable researcher in the field of computer graphics. AnteaterZot seems to be on a crusade against Georgia Tech academics! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- A. I'm not on any crusade; it appeared to me, from the two sentence article I came across, that someone was creating articles for every professor there. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on your crusading tendencies, but you certainly seem to be zealous regarding this deletion and inquisitorial to good faith, responsible, assertions of notability, rather than open-minded and fairly inquisitive. If you were deleting a bunch that were overhastily created, great, but even if 9 out of 10 sucked, 1 might be good. --Lquilter (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- B. BTW, being chair of the conference may be important, but we need a third-party source that says being the chair of that conference is notable. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- We don't need a source that says that the chair of SIGGRAPH is notable for this discussion; the good faith assertion of knowledgeable editors is sufficient for a discussion. We also don't need to cite the notability of the conference in the Turk article, by the way; that would be a distraction. Such a citation needs only be in the article on the conference. --Lquilter (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC
- Really? I'd like to see where that was entered into a guideline. AnteaterZot (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- We don't need a source that says that the chair of SIGGRAPH is notable for this discussion; the good faith assertion of knowledgeable editors is sufficient for a discussion. We also don't need to cite the notability of the conference in the Turk article, by the way; that would be a distraction. Such a citation needs only be in the article on the conference. --Lquilter (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC
- C. As it stands right now, the article consists of three sentences; He is a CG associate prof at GT, he worked on the Bunny, and he was technical papers chair of a conference with many initials. A user of Wikipedia would have no idea what any of this means, and nowhere does the article provide reliable sources for the notability of working on the Bunny nor being technical papers chair of a conference. He may be well-known within his field (although no source explicitly says so), which makes me still question his notability. I'm pretty sure the Google search cannot be used as a citation, too. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree that the article as it stands doesn't do the best job at asserting/explaining his notability (with it being three sentences and all), your edit summaries of "Deletion proposed. Somebody at Georgia Tech is busy creating pages for professors and departments without being aware of Wikpedia's notability requirements." do sound a little bit crusade-ish. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please assume that I am operating in good faith. There were a cluster of articles, and I made what may or may not be a bad assumption. And even if I was "out to get" this article, the debate must address the merits, not my actions. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- You do know that "associate" professor means he's gotten tenure. It's not "assistant" professor. --Lquilter (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. AnteaterZot (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- You do know that "associate" professor means he's gotten tenure. It's not "assistant" professor. --Lquilter (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please assume that I am operating in good faith. There were a cluster of articles, and I made what may or may not be a bad assumption. And even if I was "out to get" this article, the debate must address the merits, not my actions. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree that the article as it stands doesn't do the best job at asserting/explaining his notability (with it being three sentences and all), your edit summaries of "Deletion proposed. Somebody at Georgia Tech is busy creating pages for professors and departments without being aware of Wikpedia's notability requirements." do sound a little bit crusade-ish. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- A. I'm not on any crusade; it appeared to me, from the two sentence article I came across, that someone was creating articles for every professor there. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Technical papers chair for SIGGRAPH 2008 is *not* an easy feat. The article may need work but I think it would be a better use of our energy (and more in line with what Wikipedia is supposed to contain) if we try to improve and expand the article rather than removing it. --Ubardak (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- If this were the Computer Graphics Wiki, then such a feat would count. But every article on Wikipedia needs to demonstrate notability outside the narrow confines of its field. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think so far all the editors who posted a vote here already thinks that he does demonstrate notability. I really fail to see how further discussion will change people's votes or attract people voting otherwise. The sheer number of published and cited papers should be enough for notability and then there is being the SIGGRAPH 2008 chair on top of that as well. Does one need to win an Oscar in order to get a Wikipedia article if she/he is in CG ? --Ubardak (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- By the rules of AfD, these are "not votes". I was directed to compare him to the other members of the category; you should take a look at them too. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bad choice of word on my part - does "opinion" suit your tastes better? The main idea behind my statement remains which is that you have your peers disagreeing with you overwhelmingly about this person's notability. I did (and am) looking at other members of the category. --Ubardak (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's just that the opinions of people in the field are informed by their immersion in the subject. That's why Wikipedia wants to see sources outside the field attest to the notability of a topic. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Where in policy or guidelines does it say that "Wikipedia wants to see sources outside the field attest to the notability of a topic." You may want that, but I see no evidence that it is Wikipedia's opinion, which is formed by consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Mostly it's in here. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I still can't see anything that says or implies that sources need to be "outside the field". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- It says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It goes on to say, * "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects presumed to be notable may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually support notability when examined. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of information that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite their existence as reliable sources.
- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".) is plainly trivial.
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has recieved by the world at large.
- "Sources,"Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
- "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
- A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article." AnteaterZot (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I can see that you can copy and paste like the best of them, but none of that answers my question: where in all that does it say that sources have to be "outside the field", which was what you claimed? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The crux of the nominator's point is "independent of the subject". Unfortunately, it does not mean what he thinks it means. "Independent of the subject" does not mean "outside the field" and I have never seen that even asserted. Of course, mainstream press coverage of a scientist would be a very strong indicator of notability, but it is by no means required. --Lquilter (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply I have seen it asserted. For example, many a video game character and D&D article have been deleted even though they had sources (typicaly reviews) from the video game and D&D communities that were independent of the companies that published the games. AnteaterZot (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the Greg Turk article still does not have sources (even from within the CG community) that assert his notability. His papers are listed and their high numbers of citations are provided, and the fact that he is tech papers chair of SIGGRAPH is sourced, but that's it. AnteaterZot (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- The crux of the nominator's point is "independent of the subject". Unfortunately, it does not mean what he thinks it means. "Independent of the subject" does not mean "outside the field" and I have never seen that even asserted. Of course, mainstream press coverage of a scientist would be a very strong indicator of notability, but it is by no means required. --Lquilter (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I can see that you can copy and paste like the best of them, but none of that answers my question: where in all that does it say that sources have to be "outside the field", which was what you claimed? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- It says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It goes on to say, * "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects presumed to be notable may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually support notability when examined. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of information that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite their existence as reliable sources.
- Sorry, but I still can't see anything that says or implies that sources need to be "outside the field". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Mostly it's in here. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Where in policy or guidelines does it say that "Wikipedia wants to see sources outside the field attest to the notability of a topic." You may want that, but I see no evidence that it is Wikipedia's opinion, which is formed by consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's just that the opinions of people in the field are informed by their immersion in the subject. That's why Wikipedia wants to see sources outside the field attest to the notability of a topic. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bad choice of word on my part - does "opinion" suit your tastes better? The main idea behind my statement remains which is that you have your peers disagreeing with you overwhelmingly about this person's notability. I did (and am) looking at other members of the category. --Ubardak (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- By the rules of AfD, these are "not votes". I was directed to compare him to the other members of the category; you should take a look at them too. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think so far all the editors who posted a vote here already thinks that he does demonstrate notability. I really fail to see how further discussion will change people's votes or attract people voting otherwise. The sheer number of published and cited papers should be enough for notability and then there is being the SIGGRAPH 2008 chair on top of that as well. Does one need to win an Oscar in order to get a Wikipedia article if she/he is in CG ? --Ubardak (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- If this were the Computer Graphics Wiki, then such a feat would count. But every article on Wikipedia needs to demonstrate notability outside the narrow confines of its field. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep SIGGRAPH '08 tech papers chair is by far enough notability by itself. The impact of SIGGRAPH is enormous. It's the richest and most visible of all the ACM SIGs. Pete St.John (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - chair of siggraph is highly notable in CS. David Eppstein's research also shows notability of published articles & cites per WP:PROF. --Lquilter (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question Does anybody have a source that says that chair of technical papers of SIGGRAPH is notable? AnteaterZot (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Google found [2], which attests to the conference's importance as a publications vehicle within the computing field, showing the importance of its chair of technical papers (the equivalent of the editor-in-chief of a high-impact conventional journal). Espresso Addict (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.