Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SemEval

SemEval

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

No indication why this series of workshops is notable or significant. "Sources" provided deal more with the methodology of the topic at hand, and do not appear to be supporting arguments for this topic to be notable. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SemEval-1. — Timneu22 · talk 21:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Automatic semantic analysis is an area that is becoming more and more important in natural language processing research, and the availability of datasets is central to this effort. SemEval has been important especially in making datasets available for a variety of semantic processing tasks, often being the first to point out an important new task.
Keep: SemEval is an important series of conferences that have been influential in the development of the field of computational semantic analysis. This page is the only place that summarises all information about the SemEval events that have run to date and provides a comprehensive overview. Pages exist for similar conference series such as TREC and MUC. 14:08, 9 November 2010 (GMT) northernLinguist — northernLinguist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 23:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SemEval has five published proceedings, is cited by hundreds of papers and has led to several special journal issues (referenced in the article). I believe that this demonstrates notability. Francis Bond (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: SemEval is the primary semantic evaluation forum in the field of Computational Linguistics, with 100 papers at the last iteration alone; it is the primary activity of ACL's Special Interest Group on the Lexicon (SIGLEX), and an ongoing activity which has been growing every year PimmyP (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — PimmyP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per this article and several of the references therein. Therefore, passes WP:GNG. -Atmoz (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Association for Computational Linguistics, the sponsor. —Tamfang (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Association for Computational Linguistics, If for some bizare reason if its kept on its own it needs to be stubified as its pretty darn spammy The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SemEval is an important series of workshops in the field of Computational Linguistics and there is too much information to merge with the ACL page. Francis Bond (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Too much volume, you mean. —Tamfang (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Frankly there alot here but very little of it is within the WP:MOS, what little prose there is can be merged. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you be more specific? I don't see anything in WP:MOS that argues against putting information in tables, if that is what is bothering you. Francis Bond (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe the comment refers to the high number of inline hyperlinks and such. If you look at earlier revisions of the article (like when this AfD was created), the article was truly horrific, MOS-speaking. It's slightly better now. — Timneu22 · talk 01:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It look identical to me, not to mention WP:EL, WP:JARGON, I cant read the damn thing. Not to mention a single source as the nom talks about the topic. It appears to be straight WP:OR and WP:SPAM masqauading as an article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't disagree. It's still pretty bad, just not as bad. — Timneu22 · talk 02:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It seems to me that all of the external links fall into this permitted category Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopaedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. The only original research is a synthesis of existing material, which is part of writing an encyclopaedia article. All the links are part of a summary that tells us more about the workshops, and lead to more information for those who want more. This follows the guidelines in WP:SPAM If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Do not simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them.. Technically the link is followed by the facts, but that is just because it is in a table. So I am afraid I can't agree that it is either original research or spam. I agree that the article is fairly technical, but that in itself is not an argument for deletion, only for more editing. Francis Bond (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        So who's looking for an encyclopedic understanding of a series of workshops? —Tamfang (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not difficult to find entries on series of workshops. Two related examples are Cross Language Evaluation Forum and Text Retrieval Conference. Perhaps this article could be improved in readability, and it gives a lot of information, but in any case its fault is providing more pointers and information than other related articles. EnekoA (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)— EnekoA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. If there is third-party coverage in reliable sources to show that the workshops are notable as events, then keep the page. Scholarly work by workshop participants, which is what the current reference section offers, is not, however, evidence of the notability of the workshops themselves. The references cited are excellent sources for understanding word-sense disambiguation, but this page purports to describe SemEval workshops as such, not the scientific/scholarly understandings that grow out of them or otherwise relate to them. I would say that best references for the workshops as workshops would be non-scholarly sources such as newspapers or semi-scholarly work such as Science Daily or Chronicle of Higher Education. Cnilep (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Association for Computational Linguistics- seems notable enough for a mention there, but not for a full article. And I stand by earlier comments I made elsewhere that this read(s) like an advertisement; that can be fixed, but once fixed it seems like the information would best be merged into the aforementioned article, hence my decision. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here's some short summary of the WPs that people are talking about here.Alvations (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP violations	Reason for WP violations	Possible Resolution
WP:notability	No indication why this series of workshops is notable or significant.-Timneu22 · talk 21:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)	SemEval has five published proceedings, is cited by hundreds of papers and has led to several special journal issues (referenced in the article). I believe that this demonstrates notability. Francis Bond (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
WP-GNG	Possible non-notability of this article	Keep per this article and several of the references therein. Therefore, passes WP:GNG. -Atmoz (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:MOS	Frankly there alot here but very little of it is within the WP:MOS, what little prose there is can be merged. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)	Could you be more specific? I don't see anything in WP:MOS that argues against putting information in tables, if that is what is bothering you. Francis Bond (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:EL, WP:JARGON, WP:OR, WP:SPAM	I cant read the damn thing. Not to mention a single source as the nom talks about the topic. It appears to be straight WP:OR and WP:SPAM masqauading as an article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)	Technically the link is followed by the facts, but that is just because it is in a table. So I am afraid I can't agree that it is either original research or spam. I agree that the article is fairly technical, but that in itself is not an argument for deletion, only for more editing. Francis Bond (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)