Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SemEval

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 to delete, default to keep. There are some good arguments here on both sides. However, given the number of keep arguments from single purpose accounts, I think this would be a contentious close, even 13-1 in favour of keep. The reason I make this close is that I notice that a concerted effort has begun to rewrite the article at Talk:SemEval/Proposed_Revision. Once a new version of the article has been created, any editor can bring the new version to AfD if they think it prudent/necessary. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

SemEval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

(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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.244.46 (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — 24.155.244.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• 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. — 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]
  • How does that demonstrate notability? It's the organization talking about itself; a source, to be sure, but that doesn't show how or why it's notable. It seems like the concepts being discussed at these events are notable, but the events themselves aren't notable enough to stand on their own; hence, they can/should be merged into Association for Computational Linguistics. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:21, 10 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]
              • There are articles on football teams, but not – so far as I know – descriptions of each scoring drive in each Super Bowl. —Tamfang (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[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) On further reflection, I think that this article is worth keeping. I took a very careful look through the sources, and they demonstrate more notability than I would have thought. The article still needs some work on writing, but that's something that'll improve overtime, especially once the Wikignomes make their way over here. Special thanks to Francis Bond for getting me to take another look; now I'm convinced. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 13 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)

• Keep and cleanup. As mentioned above, appears to generate significant work in the field. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Guys, i did some wikifying of the page, take a look and see whether the users who cannot stand tables finds it alright. thanks Alvations (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable evaluation campaign. - Francis Tyers · 16:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep SemEval is an important part of the computational linguistics milieu, comparable to other shared tasks which also have their own Wikipedia pages, e.g. MUC and TREC. This is valuable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin.cohen (talk • contribs) 16:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is one of the more important and influential series of events in the field. --Zeman (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep SemEval (and SenseEval) is undoubtedly one of the most important and well-established forums for the development and evaluation of semantic technologies. While the workshop itself is naturally most well-known amongst academics and researchers, many of the developments that arise from it are of import to the general populace. As significant aspects of our technological landscape are coming to be transformed by the sorts of technologies fostered by SemEval, the subject-matter of this page is of increasing historical and cultural significance. Any recommendations for this page's improvement should therefore be heeded and acted upon in order that this important information remains available. Focus should be on the history of the workshop and its major contributions to the broader field, with more technical concerns remaining the business of the workshop itself. Justin Washtell (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — Justin Washtell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^prattle 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject appears to be notable, however the article right now basically a bunch of meaningless marketing doublespeak and spam. The lead is completely incomprehensible. For a bunch of people who are all about words and semantics, you'd think their WP article would be a bit more coherent. Also, way too many inappropriate external links. Major cleanup required. SnottyWong ^prattle 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• commentpersonally I am yet to be convinced is indpendently notable form Association for Computational Linguistics. Its run by them and likely got press because its connected to them. Just as a Conference by American Anthropological Association is notable and gets press for being a conference held by them. But We dont have a Article on every conference of theirs. thats what needs to be proven by those to argueing keep to as why it is independently notable. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - SemEval is a major feature of the NLP and CL landscape. It is very useful to have this page as a consolidated description of the history and processes to use as a reference for students et al. Merging it into the ACL page is quite inappropriate. (I actually think it's quite comprehensible and spam-free.)JimBreen (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)— JimBreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - SemEval is very well known to anybody working on computational linguistics in general and word sense disambiguation in particular. This article might deserve some rewriting, but an article on SemEval in Wikipedia is definitely needed. Benoît Sagot (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — Benoît Sagot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - Let's look at this in a larger context. Human language technology as a field runs quite a number of annual competitions (some of which are called "shared tasks," or even "conferences" if there is an attached meeting). I personally find it difficult to keep them all straight, especially since each competition has a history: not only are new techniques tried each year within a competition, but the competition's tasks, task definitions, evaluation measures, datasets, etc. evolve from year to year. It would actually be really helpful to have a Wikipedia page for each competition, with a Wikipedia category covering all of them (or perhaps covering AI competitions more generally, with others including the Loebner Prize and Netflix Prize). I'd use these pages for reference and would send my natural language processing students to go browse the whole category. It would be a terrible organization for Wikipedia to try to cover a dozen different detailed competitions on one page (let alone the ACL page). I am not commenting here on the current quality of the page, just saying that I would like to see a page for each competition. Such pages ought to link to explanations of the various topics they mention, which might spark some necessary activity in improving Wikipedia's general coverage of the many topics in computational linguistics / human language technology / natural language processing / speech processing. Eclecticos (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google Scholar seems to find it quite notable with over a thousand hits for its current name, and more than two thousand hits of its old name of "Senseval". Google books is the same way. Dream Focus 02:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how many of those hits did you check? On the search I ran, most of them just mentioned it in passing; those that went into more detail seemed to be more oriented towards the organization that ran it, the Association for Computational Linguistics. Did you find anything that made it stand out enough from the organization? Because I didn't. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its a notable enough aspect of it to be mentioned everywhere. In the article they mention the workshops being taught. For the scientific community, it is clearly something notable. Dream Focus 10:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • [1] So are American Anthropological Association Meetings but we can't have an Article on their meetings Solely on beucause they are a "big deal" in Anthroplogy. I still see no arguement as to to have it indendent from the orgiaztion that hosts/organizes the meetings The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I do not really understand why this article should be deleted. It is definitely *not* an ad, and explains clearly the contribution of each task to overcome the state of the art in the field (e.g., why coarse-grained WSD should be performed, why word sense induction is proposed, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robykiwi (talk • contribs) 06:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but wow, does it need cleanup. The article should be describing SemEval, not every single action it has taken. There are references enough to show its notability, but a majority of that article has got to go. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Any suggestion of what to include for a wikipage for workshops? any leads to some sort of MoS or templates?? Alvations (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I think Message Understanding Conference has a good template for a basis of the article. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Words and their meaning are important to our lives. Research about word meanings and what makes us human is therefore important. SemEval/Senseval is not just a series of workshops, it is a research initiative to facilitate worldwide communication between research groups in various countries and to establish a set of standard evaluation metrics. It has a deep impact in the field of Computational Lingustics. A Wikipedia page would be a good starting point about this initiative and about the effort and resources available for disambiguating word senses. Even if the page is deleted, it will be re-created again on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Tens of thousands of researchers have an interest in the subject of word meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LinguisticBlue (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC) — LinguisticBlue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep I believe notability has been established, and the article should stay, but I do agree that there needs to be considerable revision. We should consider for whom this article would be valuable. The highly detailed descriptions of each task would only be valuable to people familiar with the conference, and probably belong on senseval.org (or whatever is the official site for SemEval). At least the external links to task descriptions should be in the External Links section, and as a more general link (e.g. http://nlp.cs.swarthmore.edu/semeval/tasks/). Most likely only people at least somewhat familiar with computational linguistics will come across the article wanting to know more about SemEval, so some jargon is fine, but these words should be linked to their namesake WP articles for proper description. Goodmami (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)— Goodmami (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• 'Reply Lomon's suggestion, here's the current SemEval page that looks more wikified and more like MUC page...Alvations (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I strongly believe that Semantic processing is at the heart of language understanding and the article should not be deleted. The information available in the article gives a comphensive view of what SemEval is all about. Freewind77 (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)— Frewwind77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Consider - I created the page so i have the least credibility to vote, i shall leave some non-publishers' cites and references to credits SemEval notability:
  • Chinese Academy of Science active participation in Semeval
  • Stanford publications in SemEval
  • Microsoft participation in SemEval
  • Bing (Microsoft SE from Powerset) participation in the most recent SemEval
  • [=http://www.research.a-star.edu.sg A*STAR] participation for SemEval tasks
  • and much more if you look through the SemEval page or read through the proceedings and see who attends these workshop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvations (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Heartbroken. weak keep: a recurring scholarly conference with sufficient (IMO) echo in independent publications. I see no problem in having separate entries on the events and on the organization behind them. But. Even trimmed down from 40+K to current state, it's "too much and nothing certain", so concerns about notability and credibility of its content (not subject) are still valid. Rescue flag is more than appropriate. East of Borschov 10:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would really love to improve the page, is there some other information that i should put up? SemEval has tasks and proceedings, i tried putting up the tasks for every SemEval workshop but it was well-accepted. i do agree that the current page is "nothing certain" but not really too much.Alvations (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment: I've put up a draft of a trimmed article: Talk:SemEval/Proposed_Revision. What do you think? It's an attempt to make this article more similar to Message Understanding Conference and Text Retrieval Conference. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2010 (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.