Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OECC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. though there seems to be agreement that improvements are enough to Keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OECC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reads like an ad. Another user tried to AFD this but Twinkle glitched out. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't establish notability, and is laid out and reads like a press release.-Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 15:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my comments now since the rewrite and remove myself from the discussion as I do not have the knowledge in this area to say either way. - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 13:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keepable but would need to see a really convincing source or two to be sure- this seems to be a large and long-running convention. The way that the article is written doesn't do it any favors and with a topic like this it can be difficult trawling for sources. I've had a quick look; I couldn't see anything "knockout" that convinced me of notability, but the impression I got from academic and other sites is that this is a fairly important event within its field. This is specialist stuff, though - do we have any optoelectronics experts on Wikipedia we could get opinions on? TheGrappler (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will bow to the expert opinion of Materialscientist who suggests to delete. TheGrappler (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per multiple IEEE and university sources. Examples: U Tokyo, IEEE Xplore1 IEEE Xplore2 The OptoElectronics and Communications Conference (OECC) has been a signature event in the area of optoelectronic and optical communications.Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- IEEE sponsors the conference. The first 2 sources above are just inviting posters. The third one is a short note about the conference published as an article in lesser known journal. Its abstract is unique for a science conference "With its superb facilities, professional service, and sophistication, the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre was selected to be the conference venue. It is also internationally known as the best exhibition and convention center in Asia for its excellence in hosting some of the world's greatest events." - SPAM. Materialscientist (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not aware of any notability criteria custom-made for conferences. Therefore I thought that IEEE Xplore and some University recognition would establish notability per WP:RS. Granted the abstract is touting the venue a bit more than normal but site-related spam is endemic to all conferences. Just show me a conference where they admit that the conference venue has problems. The venue-related cheerleading by the organisers is expected for any conference, otherwise who would go there to present anything. Coverage of conferences by third-party, non academic related sources is normally sparse and so establishing notability for a conference is not easy. If this conference is regional and not global, I still think that if it is recognised by IEEE it should be given a chance. But you put so many criteria (publishing on CD-ROM etc.) that you may know of some policy that I don't. So I am not going to dispute this any further. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (i) That text is an abstract of an article written for "the number three most-cited journal in telecommunications", it has a doi number and a status of recognized peer-reviewed article - that is why I said it is highly unusual. No printed proceedings with ISSN/ISBN number means the conference reports can not be used on WP and in respectable secondary sources - crossing the notability. IEEE sponsors many thousands of conferences. Materialscientist (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the clarification. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (i) That text is an abstract of an article written for "the number three most-cited journal in telecommunications", it has a doi number and a status of recognized peer-reviewed article - that is why I said it is highly unusual. No printed proceedings with ISSN/ISBN number means the conference reports can not be used on WP and in respectable secondary sources - crossing the notability. IEEE sponsors many thousands of conferences. Materialscientist (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not aware of any notability criteria custom-made for conferences. Therefore I thought that IEEE Xplore and some University recognition would establish notability per WP:RS. Granted the abstract is touting the venue a bit more than normal but site-related spam is endemic to all conferences. Just show me a conference where they admit that the conference venue has problems. The venue-related cheerleading by the organisers is expected for any conference, otherwise who would go there to present anything. Coverage of conferences by third-party, non academic related sources is normally sparse and so establishing notability for a conference is not easy. If this conference is regional and not global, I still think that if it is recognised by IEEE it should be given a chance. But you put so many criteria (publishing on CD-ROM etc.) that you may know of some policy that I don't. So I am not going to dispute this any further. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IEEE sponsors the conference. The first 2 sources above are just inviting posters. The third one is a short note about the conference published as an article in lesser known journal. Its abstract is unique for a science conference "With its superb facilities, professional service, and sophistication, the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre was selected to be the conference venue. It is also internationally known as the best exhibition and convention center in Asia for its excellence in hosting some of the world's greatest events." - SPAM. Materialscientist (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per notability concerns: local (Asia based) conference. The board consists of one person, the Vice President of Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Proceedings are not published (CD-rom version only). Although conducted from 1996, the coverage of the events is very sporadic. Very few Google hits (for a 15-years old event), most being echoes of the conference itself. There are hundreds like this in this field only. Materialscientist (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it These convention center buildings in every town are booked every weekend and that doesn't mean the conferences in them are important and this one isn't. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Its ideal factual and reference information for an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if the board consists of 1 person, the article is not about the board. Its well established, well attended and gets between 400 and 600 papers submittted each years. If you do a search there are a fair number of conference articles. The article needs to wikified and cleanup. scope_creep (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't expect conventions get much general press coverage, but this one seems to have enough to be notable. Not all, but some of them are articles announceing the conference, but what else could be expected to be written, even about a very proiminent conference in an esoteric field? Some of them are indeed reports on technologies presented at the conference, which would satisfy notability, in my view. (1) Computing & Control Engineering, Dec2003/Jan2004, Vol. 14 Issue 6, p4-5; (2) Telephony, 6/7/2004, Vol. 245 Issue 12, p25-25; (3) IEEE Communications Magazine, Apr2005, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p22-24, (4) Laser Focus World, May2005, Vol. 41 Issue 5, p17-22; (5) IEEE Communications Magazine, May2007, Vol. 45 Issue 5, p44-44; (6) IEEE Communications Magazine, Nov2007, Vol. 45 Issue 11, p42-42; (7) Nature Photonics, Sep2008, Vol. 2 Issue 9, p527-528, 2p, 2 Color Photographs; (8) IEEE Communications Magazine, Nov2008, Vol. 46 Issue 11, p20-20, 1p, 1 Color Photograph; (9) IEEE Communications Magazine, Nov2009, Vol. 47 Issue 11, p20-24, 3p, 4 Color Photographs; (10) Laser Focus World, Jun2010, Vol. 46 Issue 6, p6. --Bsherr (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - It still needs revising (there are no citations for the article's claim that this is especially important compared to other conferences, and external links should be in an external links section instead of the main text), but conferences having their own pages doesn't seem to be very unusual (ISSCC is a good example of how to do this well; that's one of the more important computer engineering conferences in North America). If it turns out not to be noteworthy, merge it into an appropriate list of conferences. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-So far I see no demonstration on notability for this conference. For example other conferences generate the following:[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and etc., etc.This confrence appears to have no such published contributions.
- In addition, reading some of this conferences "final reports" and "conference reports" appears to show this organization is focused on commercial advancements rather than the science of optioelectronics, although some science may be discussed by key speakers (it is difficult to determine). For example, the 2006 report [6]begins with a commercial perspective. The 2009 report ([7] and [8]) has workshop topics such as "Specialty Optical Fibers, Where is the Next Big Breakthrough?", "Optical Fiber Sensors: Overview and Opportunity, "Next-generation Broadband Optical Access – Future Challenges", and so on. I admit there are some science topics that follow,
but I am unable to find any published papers (or books) generated from these conferences from 1996 [9] to the present. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep (instead of possible keep) because - I did manage to find a large collection of published papers (accessible online) generated from the the 14th Optoelectronics and Communications Conference (OECC) 2009, on IEEE Explore, here [10]. Does this change any opinions? Perhaps the previous conferences are print only or CD-ROM only. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found what appear to be "proceedings" from the first, second, third, and fifth OECC conferences, with ISBN numbers for one or two: [11], [12], [13], [14]. Then there are books which cite works from the various conferences [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], and it seems there are many more books which cite papers from these conferences [20]. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That type of hyperbole isn't unusual in conference keynote speeches and the like, so I wouldn't call it a red flag myself. I'd have to look at the papers themselves to assess academic/scientific merit (which I would only be able to do next week, as I'm about to go on vacation). Even then, industry conferences/trade shows can be noteworthy too. Regarding academic notability, IEEE seems to be at least tangentially involved, which is a good sign for it being at least a little noteworthy, but on the flip side, IEEE is involved with hundreds of conferences (as are other countries' equivalent organizations). The only good way to check academic notability is to see how widely-cited papers from it are at unrelated events, which would take far more work than I'm willing to put in. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, no, I wouldn't call the promotional language a huge red flag. In any case, it seems I have begun to establish academic notability. I see you haven't gotten to the paragraphs where I discovered a collection of published works from the 2009 confrence (online). I provided a link. Also, I discovered what appear to be published proceedings, and I am sure this is no surprise. However, I did manage to find a good number of books which cite works from the various conferences. I provided links above. I will probably change from Delete to "needs a serious rewrite". Yes, this has been a tough nut to crack (have fun). ---- 06:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I saw those paragraphs, and assumed (admittedly without testing) that, like most such publications, the full content of the articles within the proceedings would be accessible only by subscribers to the relevant society of researchers (this is how IEEE's enormous collection of publications is set up, as well as more specialized organizations like SPIE; it's pretty much industry standard as far as I can tell). If this is an IEEE conference, I should have access to the full text of the proceedings from work, but I don't have such access from home, and will be away from the university until next week (leaving for vacation Wednesday, packing Tuesday). So I can't tell you how scientific-looking or commercial-looking the actual conference content is.
- Publication of the proceedings themselves isn't particularly strong evidence for notability (all academic conferences, large or small, do that). The citations by books not directly affiliated with the conference, on the other hand, are indeed a useful indicator of notability. Best, of course, would be digging through one of the online academic citation databases to find unrelated journal articles (best) or conference papers (adequate) citing papers from this conference, and compare the average number of citations per OECC paper to the same metric for papers from some known-to-be-noteworthy conference in the same field. But, per above, that's probably an impractical amount of work. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I wish to notify all interested parties that I did a small overhaul of this article, and perhaps now it qualifies as notable. This organization may have achieved notablility because of the following: the publications of annual Proceedings since 1996, the various annual conferences which are independently cited in various books, and the discovery of two sets of published scientific articles online, which are generated from the OECC (in 1999 and 2009 - see artticle).---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Publication of the proceedings themselves isn't particularly strong evidence for notability (all academic conferences, large or small, do that). The citations by books not directly affiliated with the conference, on the other hand, are indeed a useful indicator of notability. Best, of course, would be digging through one of the online academic citation databases to find unrelated journal articles (best) or conference papers (adequate) citing papers from this conference, and compare the average number of citations per OECC paper to the same metric for papers from some known-to-be-noteworthy conference in the same field. But, per above, that's probably an impractical amount of work. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SQ's overhaul and research from other people. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.