Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereoscopic Displays and Applications

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. Sandstein 11:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stereoscopic Displays and Applications

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unclear notability Fgnievinski (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep THe article may be notable, i think the authors should have a chance to clean it up and add some citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 16:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several independent secondary sources in the news section that could usefully be added to indicate notability. Neil Dodgson (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Many of the hits in GNews are just passing mentions a la "(some new technology) is presented at SD&A", and not talking about the conference itself. But since it is spawning quite a lot of new technology, maybe there will be significant coverage in the future (like people anticipating E3), at which point I propose no prejudice for this article to make a comeback. For now though, not really keepable (at least for as deep this uninitiated fellow sees in RS). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This conference is notable because it is the leading conference in the field of 3D displays, 3D cinema, 3DTV, 3D Movies, 3D cameras, and many other 3D technologies. These technologies have had a significant impact on the entertainment market in the last decade - 3D Movies make up a high proportion of the top box office movies, there are over 30,000 3D cinemas worldwide, most top-end home TVs include a 3D function. The conference has been tracking and supporting these fields for nearly 30 years and has amassed a considerable back-catalog of technical materials which support the advancement of this field. Many notable engineers, scientists and artists have presented at this conference which helps raise the profile of this field and give credit where it is due. Awoods3d (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Awoods3d: Notability claims need to be sourced. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski: Notability sources: Some examples:

Tech News sites: CNET http://www.cnet.com/news/dont-sit-too-close-to-the-3d-tv/ , Display Daily http://www.display-central.com/free-news/press-releases/25th-stereoscopic-displays-applications-conference-highlights/

Tech magazines: Photonics Spectra http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=50765 , Scientific American http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v296/n6/full/scientificamerican0607-86.html

Books: SD&A is cited multiple times in "3D Movie Making" by Mendiburu (2009) http://www.amazon.com/3D-Movie-Making-Stereoscopic-Digital/dp/0240811372

Google Scholar: A "deep" search of Google Scholar in 2013 found that papers presented at the SD&A conference had received 12371 citations. Please note that a regular Google Scholar Search does not reveal this stat because each SD&A volume has a new name and volume number. It is necessary to search individually on each paper presented - which needs to be done with an external script.

The significance of a conference rides on the significance of the information presented at the conference and the nobility of the authors who have presented at the conference - to this end the SD&A conference stands tall: e.g. The first article to outline the tech behind Magic Eye posters was presented at SD&A "The Autostereogram" (1990) Christopher Tyler. As another contributor mentions above, papers presented at SD&A often get cited in other media.

The developers of notable technologies have presented at SD&A: DLP inventor (and Academy Award winner) Larry J. Hornbeck, LCD inventor James Fergason, DLP 3D cinema inventor (and former CTO of REAL D) Lenny Lipton, etc. Awoods3d (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't waste our time nominating stuff for deletion if notability is "unclear". Do the research and clarify WP:BEFORE nominating. In this case, good indication of notability is given in the article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: These sources were all added after the nomination! Fgnievinski (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski: my point is that it is not good form to nominate for deletion without first looking for sources. Lack of cited sources is not justification for deletion or even nomination. ~Kvng (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: It may be: WP:DEL4. Burden of the proof lies with the article creators. The article wouldn't get sourced so quickly otherwise. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski: WP:DEL-REASON requires you make a strong argument that it is better to wholesale delete than selectively delete portions or otherwise improve the current article. That's usually a high bar. ~Kvng (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The SD&A is the most important conference in the world about scientific and pratical aspects of stereoscopy. Even if this article in Wikipedia needs to be completed and updated, it is essential that newcomers can have in Wikipedia an abstract explaining what are the main parts of this conference.Ocahen (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — Ocahen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Question Do you have any sources for this claim? --Randykitty (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the SD+A conference is the oldest academic/technical conference on this subject/science/art of stereoscopy.retroformat (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — retroformat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please familiarize yourself with AfD policy. What you or I "think" is absolutely irrelevant. What we need are sources (like Kvng also says). --Randykitty (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. My source is personal experience. I've been active in stereoscopy as an artist and developer of new techniques since 1998. 1998 to present I've kept a sharp lookout for any and all new material regarding stereoscopy. The SD+A conference is the only conference I've been aware of in all those years, and that I have personally attended, that solicits and presents research papers and posters which address the full spectrum of applications for stereoscopy. Contrary to other conferences, these applications are not limited to just entertainment, but include remote viewing/action, bio-medical imaging, human factors in stereoscopic visualization, stereoscopic and multi-view display technologies, image acquisition techniques and imaging technology - optical or otherwise, image processing, stereoscopic meta data processing, imaging data tranmission standards, etc... Every year the conference generates a weighty proceeding. http://www.stereoscopic.org/proc/index.html Again, this is unlike any other "3d" imaging conference I'm aware of. I understand this is only my "claim," but how can I prove a negative? Retroformat (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to prove a negative, you need to prove a positive, that is, you need to show that people have covered this conference in independent reliable sources. Have a look at WP:GNG to get a nidea of what is needed. --Randykitty (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found another reputable source which reviews the conference (proceedings): The Photogrammetric Record, Volume 14, Issue 83, pages 828–845, April 1994. DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-9730.1994.tb00797.x e.g. "The three volumes under review ... include a number of valuable papers". Surely the breadth, scope and number of sources and citations already provided is evidence enough to close this discussion on the side of keeping the page. Awoods3d (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provided this and the other sources above make their way into the article, I'd have to withdraw the deletion nomination, as WP:DEL4 ("Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content") would no longer be sustainable. Thanks for your sources. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might wish to link to Proceedings of the SPIE when discussing the conference proceedings publication. The Photogrammetric Record [1] also seems a notable journal which would deserve its own page (see WP:WikiProject Academic Journals for details). Fgnievinski (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources seems to be there, although the article itself needs a lot of cleanup. I'd advise those who care about this article to bring it a bit more in line with WP:JWG. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's quite a few citations for the presented papers. I think this isn't a notability issue, but more of a formatting issue. --Prosperosity (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2015 (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.