Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conference on Artificial General Intelligence: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:00, 1 June 2013

Conference on Artificial General Intelligence

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

Not seeing how this meets WP:GNG. There are plenty of GHITS for "Conference on Artificial General Intelligence", but of those that I have found, they're either unrelated to this conference, are primary sources, or are unreliable ones. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of non-notability is bogus because the user's search was weak. There are hundreds of hits on scholar.google.com, with links to papers on arXiv.org and dozens of Universities, video record of this conference taking place at Google and other other locations. What more is needed, a star on Hollywood Boulevard? sydhart (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found plenty of GHITS with this term. I couldn't find anything third-party on this conference - there are a hell of a lot of hits that come up for all sorts of random things. As I stated in the nom. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, I don't catch your meaning... "this conference" seems to be an annual event, held in different places. I don't see any search hits that mention a conference other than the one described by the article. At the same time, it seems oddly difficult to find news (or scholarly articles) that discuss the conference rather than simply citing papers from it. Dhart, can you provide some direct links to articles that might be useful? Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of third party references in the GHITs that report on past and future conferences (and that's just links in the first 3 pages of results!). It's actually disingenious to claim othrewise, and a waste of everyone's time. Why didn't the user link to the GHITs in the in first place? I'd say this nomination is a nuisance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhart (talk • contribs) 08:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: groupuscule, I agree with your synopsis that the references that Luke is finding are generally referring to the same event, and on that note I would normally Speedy Keep. But as Luke points out, the NOTEability of the Conference seems low. Dhart, the links you provide are all those of the conference's own press releases or publications, and do not meet NOTE. That is what Luke said in the nom, so I'd recommend AGF.
That said, I did find several NOTEable references in H+ magazine, real articles written by a 3rd party about the topic. But that's only one source, I'd like to see more to be worthy of an outright keep. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps try a variation on GHITs. Many 3rd party accounts, particularly in blogs. sydhart (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs don't satisfy WP:RS 95% of the time. I'm struggling to see RS in your other link as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well there *are* reliable sources, plenty of them (see the Google Scholar link again), also many hours of conference presentations and interviews of speakers and attendees on YouTube, Vimeo, etc., so this nomination is about some subjective standard of 'how many' and 'how reliable' you think they are? What's the standard? Articles in the Wall Steet Journal and video from the CBS Evening News? That would make a pretty odd standard for an academic conference. The conference is *certainly notable* within its field, particularly given the noteriety of many of the speakers and attendees. For example, the *director of research* of Google gave the opening remarks at AGI-11 (he's also the man who literally 'wrote the book', a nearly univerally used unergraduate AI textbook); follow many of the other speaker links to find other people of noteriety in the field. An academic conference is just not the sort of thing that will make the mainstream press. Academic citations are the primary method of establishing both reliability and notability within the field, and I believe that is the standard that should apply here. dhart (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is not a reliable source. Vimeo is not a reliable source. It would be nice if you could actually link some examples of in-depth, non-trivial coverage of this conference/set of conferences in 3rd-party reliable sources here, without constantly attacking me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
dhart, the problem here is that these arent 3rd party reports, they're simply people re-publishing the conference's own reports. A book listing on Amazon is not an RS, a book review on Amazon may be. To date all that I see that it really someone else writing about it is the H+ articles. So keep looking for more examples of that sort. As I said, I lean towards keep and am willing to be easily swayed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that there are many ways to meet WP:GNG and we should be careful that an over-emphasis is not placed on 3rd party media reports when there's an abundance of other evidence (video and photographic records and indepentently cited published papers). I understand that 3rd party reports are important to verifying most articles, but not every article fits into the class where 3rd party reports are the best method of verification. At an academic conference, people show up, present their work to each other (there's a solid record of that), talk a lot, go away and do research (there's a solid record of that), then come back to subsequent conferences to reconnect, and the conference grows. It's not unusual for academic conferences to receive no 3rd party report type coverage, because science is generally done through peer review rather than through media reporting. For example, all of the papers in the published proceedings of the conference, published by the committee on behalf of all of the submitters for the benefit of all researches in the field, as well as all of the presentations, go through a peer review process which is why citations to those papers can be found in other papers indepenent of the conference and published in major 3rd-party journals (independent journals reject papers with non-peer-reviewed citiations, whether reviewed by other journals' editorial committees or conference committees). My argument is that those citations should satisfy WP:RS.

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 ::::*YouTube is not a reliable source. Vimeo is not a reliable source. It would be nice if you could actually link some examples of in-depth, non-trivial coverage of this conference/set of conferences in 3rd-party reliable sources here, without constantly attacking me. [[User:Lukeno94|<font color="Navy">Luke</font><font color="FireBrick">no</font><font color="Green">94</font>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]] 12:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 ::::*dhart, the problem here is that these ''arent'' 3rd party reports, they're simply people re-publishing the conference's own reports. A book listing on Amazon is not an RS, a book ''review'' on Amazon may be. To date all that I see that it really ''someone else writing about it'' is the H+ articles. So keep looking for more examples of that sort. As I said, I lean towards keep and am willing to be easily swayed. [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 13:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
+:::::* My concern is that there are ''many'' ways to meet [[WP:GNG]] and we should be careful that an over-emphasis is not placed on 3rd party media reports when there's an abundance of other evidence (video and photographic records and indepentently cited published papers). I understand that 3rd party reports are important to verifying ''most'' articles, but not every article fits into the class where  3rd party reports are the ''best'' method of verification. At an academic conference, people show up, present their work to each other (there's a solid record of that), talk a lot, go away and do research (there's a solid record of that), then come back to subsequent conferences to reconnect, and the conference grows. It's not unusual for academic conferences to receive no 3rd party report type coverage, because science is generally done through peer review rather than through media reporting. For example, all of the papers in the published proceedings of the conference, published by the committee on behalf of all of the submitters for the benefit of all researches in the field, as well as all of the presentations, go through a peer review process which is why citations to those papers can be found in other papers indepenent of the conference and published in major 3rd-party journals (independent journals reject papers with non-peer-reviewed citiations, whether reviewed by other journals' editorial committees or conference committees). My argument is that those citations should satisfy [[WP:RS]].