Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogg Media


 * 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   redirect to Ogg. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ogg Media

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article describes a non-notable file format. "OGM" was initially developed to fill the gap left by the lack of a formal specification for video in the Ogg transport. Video was later formally specified, but in different and incompatible ways from OGM. The OGM format never saw widespread adoption, never achieved a formal specification, and is not longer developed or supported. The more widely used encapsulation modes for Ogg are simply described in the article about Ogg and in the articles about the relevant codecs. Some people confuse these formally specified mechanisms (i.e. files with ogg and ogv extensions) with OGM, but they are distinct and incompatible. This article fails to assert notability for the OGM format much less provide verifiable evidence of it. There is no citation to reliable sources, nor would I expect to find one. Accordingly, this page should be deleted. Gmaxwell (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think merge would be better, as a footnote to the story of notable file types. Hairhorn (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is now suitably 'footnoted', but there really wasn't anything to merge that wouldn't have resulted in far too much text for a balanced treatment. --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * yeah, by merge I think I meant cut out the fat, then merge. If the essence of it is already there, I'm happy to say delete. Hairhorn (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep becuse WP:NOTPAPER. I found the page via a search for "OGM". In any case, there should be a merge+redirect if this is deleted. --85.77.198.128 (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep anecdotally, I've seen a whole lotta files using ".ogm", so I don't think describing it as non-notable is reasonable. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Partial merge to Ogg - The notability guideline requires that this subject have significant coverage from reliable sources. Turning to Google News shows plenty of reliable sources that mention this file format, but little in the way of significant coverage. Nearest I can see is How to play OGM files at afterdawn.com. There's enough source material here to write about it in a broader article. I'd suggest writing the material from scratch. Marasmusine (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Partial merge into Ogg. While it is an extremely popular media container, Ogg Media is only an unofficial modification of the original OGG format. It didn't pass through a single standards organization and doesn't have any formal specifications that can be used as a reliable reference. Considering the origins of the format, I suggest we move all relevant information into a subsection of Ogg, with an explicit mention of the lack of recognition from the Xiph.Org Foundation.
 * Relevant search results and possible references:
 * http://www.afterdawn.com/glossary/terms/ogm.cfm
 * http://filext.com/file-extension/OGM
 * http://standards.jisc.ac.uk/catalogue/OGG.phtml
 * http://www.xiph.org/container/ogm.html — Rankiri (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2009 (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.