Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentic computing

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 delete. Clearly the current consensus, with no prejudice against an article at a later date. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentic computing

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

The topic does not seem to meet the notability criterion, since all the sources are primary sources by the same authors, who also seem to be responsible for the wiki page (User:Erikcambria) Anonymous but Registered (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Erik Cambria seems a little too popular in the reflist. If it contains new and WP:VERIFIABLE information, then it could be added to the existing paragraph at Sentiment analysis#Methods —JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 02:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no RS. All the papers cited are primary, with COI by Erik Cambria. A news search on "Sentic computing" returns nothing but the WP article. There are one or two books but these turn out to be chapters by Cambria in collections of academic papers. I couldn't find evidence that anybody else had picked up on the term, so notability is not established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The rather vague description of this has the ring of original synthesis, so it's not surprising that this is one guy's theory. It is also gravely suspected of having to do with nothing more consequential than yet another gee-whiz method for advertising on the Internet: a multi-disciplinary approach to opinion mining and sentiment analysis at the crossroads between affective computing and common sense computing, which exploits both computer and social sciences to better recognize, interpret, and process opinions and sentiments over the Web. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI spam. Text is a mess and honestly I don't think it says much of anything. OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Not sure if anyone noticed this yet, but the author is both blatantly WP:SELFCITING and a WP:SOCKPUPPET. See Cambriaerik (talk · contribs) and Erikcambria (talk · contribs), the two main contributors to the article in question. Not only that, but his articles have repeatedly (1, 2) been flagged as copyright violations.
For the record, I have reported the user for sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erikcambria —JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 19:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article has been edited and cleaned to comply with Wikipedia quality standards. Because sentic computing is a recently-proposed approach, the term is still not commonly used/referred. However, the many publications in top AI journals, e.g., Elsevier Expert Systems with Applications and Springer Cognitive Computation, and conferences, e.g., FLAIRS and ICDM, clearly provide evidence for the relevance and novelty of the approach. On 1st March 2012, in fact, sentic computing was selected as one of the best case studies to be put forward to the UK Government for the assessment of impact in the REF (Research Excellence Framework). Moreover, the motivations behind sentic computing are at the base of the organization of internationally referred workshops, e.g., the IEEE ICDM SENTIRE workshop series, and special issues, e.g., the IEEE Intelligent System special issue on Concept-Level Opinion and Sentiment Analysis. Eventually, a news article about sentic computing appeared in APCOMTEC on 7th September 2010. —Erikcambria 13:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's too new, then you may have to wait a while before it's encyclopedic. See WP:NEO. Also, you use a lot of WP:TECHNICAL terms without giving it enough context. —JmaJeremy ^TALK _CONTRIBS 20:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a Google Scholar search shows that most mentions of the term are in Cambria's papers, and that the most widely cited paper on the list (with only 19 citations) is mostly self-cited. Also, the workshop series is organised by Cambria. It seems like the author is trying to promote his own work via WP, as mentioned by others above. Anonymous but Registered (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term "sentic computing" seems to occur only in papers by Cambria, who seems to be the author of this WP article. Cambria's papers have very few non-self citations. Fails WP:N. Also, WP:YOURSELF applies. -- 202.124.72.69 (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2012 (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.