Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VisualMediaWorks


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC) The result was   delete. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am re-listing this AfD, as the creator contacted me pointing out that references had been added to the article, but that there had been no comments here after that point. I have restored the article so that it can be seen. I will contact the contributors to this AfD to ask if they would like to comment here again. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

VisualMediaWorks

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete No evidence of notability. The only independent source cited is http://www.cgtimes.com.cn/xwzx/zdyd/31387.shtml, which makes only one brief mention of VisualMediaWorks, as can be see from a Google translation. (Note: The article has been created by an editor with little or no editing history other than promotion of VisualMediaWorks.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. This is a business that makes animations of proposed building projects.  Clever logo, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Re-edited the Article with more citations from independent sources (Broadcast, books, magazines). Lwxmagix (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC) — Lwxmagix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Unfortunately it is still not clear to me that we have any significant coverage in independent sources. For example, we have this. It gives one very brief mention of VisualMediaWorks. Also it is an advertisement for an event at which a representative of VisualMediaWorks was to speak, so it is scarcely independent. Then we had a video posted on YouTube. It shows people making 3-D animations. I don't get any sound with it, so I can't hear what is being said. Nothing that appears on the screen mentions VisualMediaWorks, as far as I can see, though it is possible that my attention wandered at the one moment that VisualMediaWorks got a mention. (Unfortunately the video has now been removed from YouTube, so it is unverifiable.) Then we have this, which gives one brief mention of VisualMediaWorks. And then we have this, which appears to be an advertising brochure for VisualMediaWorks. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So sorry James, Most probably I was editing the references when you were going through them. Please try again on this 2 links: this and that. The 2 videos that you watched are extracts from ChannelNewsAsia.com which is an independent pan-Asian news network that showcase just on visualmediaworks for this 2 features. If you could not get the audio part, the title description for the interviewees on screen are stated "VisualMediaWorks" as well. I really hope that there is another reviewer who could get the audio part of it, as they are important references and sources for the article. Lwxmagix (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The following is a more detailed explaination of the reference sources for the VisualMediaWorks article, especially for reviewers who are not familiar with the 3d computer graphics industry. Other than the 2 books cited that mentioned VisualMediaWorks' contribution in the field of architecture and design solution for an artist, there are references from SIGGRAPH Asia (- the Asian version of SIGGRAPH, which stated in Wikipedia, "widely considered the most prestigious forum for the publication of computer graphics research"), Autodesk (- a name that no computer graphics related industry will not know as they produced all the major 3d softwares like 3ds Max, Maya and Softimage, I think a company will need to have certain notibility to be invited to give talks in their regional events), CG Times (- A very comprehensive magazine on Computer Graphics in Chinese. From the summary of contents on the same issue that featured VisualMediaWorks, they featured CG Movie Astro Boy (film), District 9, CG Animator Brian Dowrick, CG Graphics for Puccini's Musical Turandot, and many more), Channel NewsAsia (- as stated in Wikipedia, it is a major Asian news broadcaster with programmes telecast to more than 20 Asian countries and territories. I think this source should be a major reference in terms of notibility and significant coverage), Lianhe Zaobao (- as stated in Wikipedia, is the largest Singapore-based Chinese newspaper and establishing a regional presence for itself, with subscriptions for its print edition from Southeast Asia, China, Hong Kong as well as organisations such as the United Nations. I think the source should contribute to some significant coverage as well). It is really a pity that these major reference news sources Lianhe Zaobao and ChannelNewsAsia could not be linked online as the news articles on their website only display for 7 days. All news articles before 7 days are taken offline. It is true that previously, there was an article on VisualMediaWorks that look like an advertising brochure to me. Hence, I have already removed it. Lwxian (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete ISDN ref is ok, but i'd like to see one more. I'm on the cusp of neutrality, I would not mind seeing this being kept. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: All the contributors to this discussion have been notified that this AfD has been re-opened and invited to comment here


 * Two comments, one negative and one slightly positive.
 * 1) Looking at the changes which have happened to the article since the last comment above I see there is just one new reference, namely this. It is an advertisement for a seminar in which VisualoMediaWorks was to be a contributor. The page has a brief schedule of the even, invcluding "2.35pm - Advantages of Using 3D in Interior Design Hon Kit, Managing Director, VisualMediaWorks". That is the only mention of VisualMediaWorks. By no stretch of the imagination is this significant coverage, and it is not independent coverage either. This does not justify reopening the discussion.
 * 2) I have now been able to watch the video clips with sound. (I suppose there must have been a problem with the computer I was viewing them on before.) Yes, they are clearly about VisualMediaWorks, and the two clips give more significant coverage than all the other sources. In my opinion they bring notability to somewhere near the borderline level. It is not quite enough to push me to "keep", but enough that I now regard my "delete" as a very weak one. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am moving the following comments to the end of my earlier post, as I think putting them in the middle may be confusing. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * James, if all the 'delete' !voters come here and say to still delete, then I will close this as a speedy delete. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My phrasing was badly chosen. When I wrote "This does not justify reopening the discussion" I was not intending that to be a criticism of Phantomsteve for reopening it, which is no doubt what it looks like. It was reasonable for Phantomsteve, having been asked, to give the article another chance by reopening. However, I am doubtful whether requesting a reopening was justified on the basis of that one, very poor, extra reference. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think Delete. Codf1977 (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for the 2 comments... still working hard to add more references to push up above the borderline level... not too sure if linking to other Wikipedia articles that mentioned VisualMediaWorks will help... I have added 1 more reference linking to another Wikipedia article that mentioned about VisualMediaWork's contribution to the Alkaff Bridge (Singapore's ArtBridge). Lwxmagix (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You can't use Wikipedia as a reference - you can link to the articles, but not use them as references --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 14:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I have moved Smerdis of Tlön's re-iteration of their 'delete' here, so that other editors/closing admin can see it more clearly. I forgot to notify Joe Chill of the re-listing, so I am going to do that now, and await his comment here
 * Delete, again. I looked at some of the new references, and the YouTube links.  I still don't see anything that establishes that this business has historical, technical, or cultural importance, that it has any significant coverage outside of Singapore, or outside of works it has created on behalf of its clients.  All the additional sources would seem to be generated by the business's PR department. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The references provided are clearly minor. Miami33139 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2010 (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.