Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACM Multimedia


 * 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 (References to independent sources have been added during the AfD, which have clarified the importance of this conference). Espresso Addict 02:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

ACM Multimedia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable conference, virtual orphan, no reliable sources. This article is a repository of external links with no encyclopedic content. I've asked the author to include assertions of notability and what has resulted is a parody of an encyclopedia article, with the word "notable" appearing in every other sentence and subject heading: unencyclopedic peacock like "In addition to being notable in and of itself, it has also contained notable workshops, notable awards, and other notable parts." Robert K S 00:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC) ETA: If this AfD closes in a delete or merge, would the closing admin notify me before deleting the article? I would be happy to merge the information. Robert K S 02:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 *  Keep . Merge (see below).  I certainly agree that the article is very poorly written and needs considerable clean-up and wikification.  However, when I added the "reflist" tag so that the references actually showed up, I came across this quote from Microsoft Research: "ACM Multimedia, as the conference is known, is billed as the premier annual multimedia conference, covering all aspects of multimedia computing, from underlying technologies to applications, theory to practice, and servers to networks to devices."  That, to me, demonstrates notability far better than all the awful peacock language (and when added to the Leonardo cite, seems truly determinative of notability).  Perhaps someone with an affinity for this topic and some writing skills could re-write it.  Accounting4Taste 01:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This article deserves to be a section in its parent article, SIGMM, which, incongruously, isn't even linked from the article. It doesn't need an article of its own. Robert K S 02:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As stated in the previous prod, this article lacks encyclopedic content. It is a listing od conferences that have questionable value to anyone accessing this subject. --Stormbay 02:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge My impression after some googling is, this is indeed the premier multimedia conference (e.g. also or ) - likely someone who knows the topic can find better references. That may also explain the sentence added by the author In addition to being notable in and of itself, it has also contained notable workshops, notable awards, and other notable parts. - that's out of place in the article, but likely true. So what is left is to write an actual article about the conference, there is lots of encyclopedic material to say about it - but not delete it. --Allefant 09:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So your keep vote is based on what the article could be instead of what the article is? As above, a merge to SIGMM with a suitable section there would be preferable to an unsourced article that has no real content. Robert K S 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've changed my suggestion to Merge as per the contribution of Robert K S, whom I believe understands the nuances of the relationship between the two articles much better than I do. Thanks for making this clearer to me.  Accounting4Taste 16:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did look at the SIGMM article, but it's a stub, and the only info it contains is that it is a "special interest group". To me as an outsider, that's just too abstract to have any idea what it really means or how it is any notable - so I don't see any merit from merging. The topic of this article here is notable though (and it also is sourced by now). All it needs is expanding and cleaning - but AfD is not the place for that. And you can always perform a merge by using the merge template. --Allefant 18:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * SIGMM is the group and ACM Multimedia is their conference. Unless the conference can be shown to have notability beyond being the (not quite) annual meeting of the Special Interest Group (as can be argued for the conference SIGGRAPH of the group ACM SIGGRAPH, which attracts tens of thousands of visitors and reams of national and international press every year), then the conference merits no more than a section in its SIG's article. Does that make sense? Robert K S 02:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It does. I updated my vote to keep/merge - whether the conference name or group name is used doesn't really seem to matter. --Allefant 13:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER   94  20:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is notable and the article can be improved. The ACM Conferences are generally the most notable ones in their respective subjects; the organisation is constituted of a multitude of SIGs, each of which is the main specialized organization for a subject--they are not generally small or insignificant--there are quite a lot of people interested in computer multimedia. Some real sourcing is needed, and should be possible. Outsiders can attempt to get some idea of things from the web sites for this and the parent body, but yes, it can be tricky to decipher. Academics and computer people do things in unobvious ways, and it gets worse when you combine the two. DGG (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 *  Keep weak keep The conference seems to be notable but the article needs to be cleaned and marked as in need of sourcing and improvement. Neozoon 23:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, again, a lot of things can "seem" notable, but if so, where are the reliable sources? Keep votes cannot be made on hypothetical future improvements--notability should be judged based on the present condition of the article and its sourcing.  As I describe above, this article merits merging into a section of its parent article.  Please examine the article and consider changing your vote to a merge. Robert K S 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But I think that the article as it is now is good enough to be kept and needs to be marked as to be improved. There are articles about roles of TV-Series on Wikipedia that are of less interest than a regular conference. Another question is the article about the organisation behind the conference which realy lacks information. (change to weak keep) Best regards Neozoon 20:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, ACM conferences are notable, and are usually the most notable in their field. This conference is no different.  The article needs expanding. John Vandenberg 00:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is different. The article has no reliable sources and its assertions of notability are buffoonery, and so doesn't merit its own article.  If all ACM conferences are a priori notable as you assert in your AfD vote, back this assertion up with some sources for the article, or change your vote to merge. Robert K S 05:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it different? The article stated why it was notable, and thus just needs work.  Ask anyone familiar with comp.sci. or lib.sci. and they will tell you it is notable immediately.  Ask anyone who is familiar with ACM in any way, and they would "guess" it is notable even if they have never heard of this particular conference.  Why?  Because they know that the ACM doesnt run conferences that are not notable.  "ACM Multimedia" returns 17,000 hits in Google Scholar; 2 hits on Google News in the last month, and 16 going back into the archives.  It has ~650 hits in Google Books, and the proceedings of this conference is held by many libraries worldwide; for example, proceedings of '96 held in Boston is held by 11 libraries in the UK alone . John Vandenberg 06:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not about asking people or discussion forums. This is about what's in the article.  Anything dubious in Wikipedia articles can be challenged.  I am presenting that challenge.  The challenge must be met with improvements to the article, or merging/deletion. Does that process seem reasonable?  The alternative is that nothing is challengable: any AfD must end in a keep because in a fantasy future the article stands up to scrutiny.  End the fantasy: provide the sources. Robert K S 06:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have demonstrated it has been noted sufficiently that you should be willing to acknowledge that it is certain to be notable. As a result, why is it my responsibility to improve the article when you could do the same.  Nevertheless, I will drop what I am doing and expand the article for your gratification. John Vandenberg 06:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. ACM conferences are generally among the best in their areas and this is no exception. The Microsoft link already included in the article is one reliable nontrivial secondary source; here's another. —David Eppstein 00:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is somebody's university newsletter report about a visit to the conference. On the reliable sources scale I'd rank it above a blog entry but below an article from a major magazine or newspaper and well below a published book.  Rather than collect purported sources in an AfD, please improve the article and incorporate them.  Again, I point out that the article needs to be judged on its current state and not on a hypothetical future state.  No article would ever be merged or deleted if it could be "imagined" to be improved.  You must either actually improve the article, or you must vote to delete or merge. Robert K S 05:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Robert, is it really necessary to go around asking everyone to change their !votes not only here but in their talk pages? See WP:CANVAS. And no, I must do no such thing if I don't want to. —David Eppstein 07:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What I see are a multiplicity of votes--and from admins, no less--that are not based on the content of the article. Only one editor, Jayvdb has offered to improve the article rather than voting to keep an article that falls well below standards. Robert K S 07:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not a vote. Its a discussion, and you are hell-bent on advocating that it should be deleted despite plenty of good reasons by reasonable people and evidence that it doesnt need to be deleted.  You don't appear to be listening to the opinions of others. John Vandenberg 07:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more that the AfD process is intended to be a discussion and not a vote. As for my not listening, to the contrary, I have made targeted and reasonable challenges to what I find to be unreasonable arguments.  I'm not "hell-bent" on anything, and with your remark what should be a process involving the article has become an ad hominem process involving me, and so I make my departure from this conversation. Robert K S 08:04, 20 October 2007 (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.