Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argument Web

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. As to whether to merge or to keep. Merger discussions can continue on the talk page. Sandstein 11:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Argument Web

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Struggling to establish WP:GNG. Can't find a reasonable list of significant quality sources independent of the subject. The very few that are around, are also dated (almost 5 years old). Doesn't seem like the concept/idea/website ever really took off, and now seems dormant. Britishfinance (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Semantic Web as a small section. The Argument Web seems to have been floated around as an academic theory in reputable circles, but the papers are sparse enough that a full page isn't warranted. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of academic sources discussing this, spanning over a decade, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Michig: @Rubbish computer: These five academic source are effectivey the same authors from the "Argumentation Research Group (ARG), School of Computing, University of Dundee" (with Floris Bex from University of Groningen appearing in some; maybe he was in Dundee at some stage), in at 3 sources, it is the same core paper, where as in the other two sources, one is a 2-page draft (not a paper) by the ARG leader (Chris Reed) with University of Dubai, and the other is again Chris Reed and the core ARG, talking about applications of their main paper.

a. First source [6] author Chris Reed, Katarzyna Budzynska, Rory Duthie, Mathilde Janier, Barbara Konat, John Lawrence, Alison Pease, Mark Snaith

b. Second souce (their draft) [7] John Lawrende, Floris Bex, Chris Reed, and Mark Snaith

c. Third source [8] this is a 2-page draft by Iyad Rahwan, Fouad Zablith, Chris Reed (Universty of Dundee with University of Dubai)

d. Fourth source [9] (identical paper to first source by identical authors)

e. Fifth source [10] (same authors as second source)

The requirement is several significant independent sources – these are not independent, and some are not even significant. On this basis, almost every academic paper would qualify as a WP article. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and these: [11], [12], [13]?

Comment haven't time to go throuh all but the third one is from Part V Chapter 21 and if you check the contents you will see team members of the above papers appearing as the authors (e.g. Floris Bex, Chris Reed), and the section itself is also about the University of Dundee's Arvina (by Mark Snaith) and OVA (by Chris Reed) Arguement Web applications. Again, the University of Dundee ARG team writing about their own work – don't think that would pass independence? Britishfinance (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The chapter has some of the Dundee staff listed among the authors, but mostly other people. The other two of these sources come from Brazillian authors. --Michig (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is also coverage of Rahwan's ArgDF e.g. [14]. The Dubai group have collaborated with the Dundee group, but there appears to be at least three research groups working on this in three different countries. --Michig (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The list of authors at Part V Chapter 21 would have written individual sections of Chapter 21. The first two of the other references (11 and 12) are essentially the same source: Roberto Niche. I would need to check more as to whether Roberto was part of the ARG, but if not it would be a single independent source. I don't understand link with Rahwam's ArgDF (I can't see Arguement Web)? Previously, I felt that this was not only un-notable, but that the references had dried up. You have shown there is possibly one independent recent academic group that recognises the term? Not sure however if the case is still too contrived (i.e. I feel like we are stretching for this one), verus a clear case for notabilty. 11:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge to Semantic web per 31.54.34.61. While Michig has uncovered some sources, I find Britishfinance's rebuttal of their independence, reliability and scope of coverage compelling. SITH (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2019 (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.