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. Policy based rationales show a rough consensus to delete Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply

D-Agree

D-Agree (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

This subject may not meet general notability guidelines; I can't find significant coverage in independent reliable sources in English, but perhaps others can help determine if there is such coverage in other languages. The article was PRODed in September 2021 and then moved to draft in October 2021 where a different version still exists at Draft:D-Agree. Somehow a duplicate article was moved here in June 2022 and then most of its history was struck as WP:COPYVIO. There is a paragraph about the subject in Issue-based information system, which looks appropriate to me, but I doubt there is sufficient notability for this separate article, which also, by the way, was created by connected contributors. Biogeographist ( talk) 15:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist ( talk) 15:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Agree with delete, I don't think this meets GNG. Caleb Stanford ( talk) 21:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Biogeographist You don't think that UN report is reliable source? Could you please read p. 23.

https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/d8files/knowledge-products/Regional-Partners-Forum-Outcome-Report-20220318.pdf Jawad Haqbeen ( talk) 04:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

It is reliable but just a paragraph, not significant coverage by WP:GNG standard, so not relevant to the deletion discussion, but may be useful as a source in another article. Biogeographist ( talk) 22:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment

a) Please see if this citation helps in any way Which also seems academically independent of present researcher contributor.

"Ito, T., Suzuki, S., Yamaguchi, N., Nishida, T., Hiraishi, K., & Yoshino, K. (2020). D-Agree: Crowd Discussion Support System Based on Automated Facilitation Agent. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(09), 13614-13615. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i09.7094"

b) A goodfaith researcher's contribution in his own area of knowledge generally need not be considered serious breach of COI. Being unable to accommodate Phd level researchers just because enough independent coverage does not exist is structural problem of Wikipedia. IMHO as long as any researcher contributor is not promoting pseudo–science we give encyclopedic space (by merging if necessary) at least in related article until draft gets developed.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 06:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The reference is not independent of the developers as required by WP:GNG evaluation of sources for notability, so not not relevant to the deletion discussion. Biogeographist ( talk) 22:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Biogeographist Even without that, 2 UN agencies reports and 2 Japanese news sources exists would those be ok to maintain article as stub?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 02:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply

No, the UN stuff is just a mention, and the Japanese sources are an interview and press releases, not significant coverage. Biogeographist ( talk) 16:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Biogeographist

You mean bellow is just a mention and is not significant?

"Afghanistan: D-Agree - An AI-based solution to support participatory urban planning In 2019, the Nagoya Institute of Technology and Kyoto University, in partnership with the Kabul Municipality, developed an Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered platform, called D-Agree, to support information-centric participation in urban planning and provide support for stakeholders to reach consensus. D-Agree, is a largescale online debate support platform based on AI facilitation, where its AI-based tool extracts the discussion structure based on IBIS (issues, ideas, pros, and cons) from the human opinions posted on the D-Agree platform, as well as data collected from other social media. From September 2019 until the fall of Kabul in August 2021, D-Agree was used on behalf of Kabul Municipality to moderate 306 Kabul city-related planning discussions. In these discussions, more than 15,000 citizens participated in planning activities hosted by D-Agree and generated more than 71,000 opinions (catalogued into IBIS) regarding urban-related thematic areas. Despite the Taliban take-over, D-Agree will continue to play an important role in facilitating urban planning and infrastructure-related consultations. The next steps are to expend the platform to promote communicative planning in other cities, including Kandahar and Herat, which have officially expressed their intention to collaborate. D-Agree will also be used in collaboration with more municipal governments in Japan and Indonesia."

This is a case study presented at Second Regional Partners Forum 2022 hosted jointly by two UN agencies (ESCAP and UN-Habitat).

And reported by following links.

1. https://www.urbanagendaplatform.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/UN%20Regional%20Commissions_NUA%20survey%20responses_2021.pdf

2. https://www.un.org/ecosoc/sites/www.un.org.ecosoc/files/files/en/2022doc/UNECE-QR-report.pdf

3. https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/d8files/knowledge-products/Regional-Partners-Forum-Outcome-Report-20220318.pdf

If yes, then no argument, please proceed accordingly.

Thanks. Jawad Haqbeen ( talk) 09:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Biogeographist And please understand this is a digital platform developed by Japanese, and if you are looking for significant coverage then go to Japanese media world.

Her I post some references which already published about D-Agree in Japanese media.

1. https://reseed.resemom.jp/article/2022/05/17/3919.html

2. https://www.kknews.co.jp/news/20220218yt06

3. https://robotstart.info/2021/06/03/ai-opinion-intensive-d-agree.html

4. https://www.excite.co.jp/news/article/Atpress_312932/

5. https://techable.jp/archives/158997

6. https://mag.osdn.jp/pr/22/06/07/093001

7. https://www.sanspo.com/pressrelease/atpress/GVJIX4WNSRNIZMYKVRRMTYGSZA/

8. https://aismiley.co.jp/ai_news/ai-supports-discussion-and-consensus-building/

9. https://ict-enews.net/2022/02/21agreebit/

10. https://nagoyastartupnews.jp/d-agree-kasugai-city/

11. https://www.newsweekjapan.jp/press-release/2022/06/aid-agreeedtech2022.php

12. https://it.impress.co.jp/articles/-/21575

13. https://airobot-news.net/2022/02/18/agreebit/

14. https://japan.zdnet.com/release/30575336/

15. https://digitalist-web.jp/trends/news-products/xaL4Z

16. https://www.sentankyo.jp/articles/2fd6846d-84b4-4a97-8839-879cf1f9ed1f

17. https://sotokoto-online.jp/sustainability/12013

18. https://www.sankeibiz.jp/business/news/220217/prl2202171002020-n1.htm

19. https://www.ai-japan.go.jp/menu/covid-19-top/online-meeting/

20. https://www.mapion.co.jp/news/release/ap310225-all/

21. https://port.creww.me/startup/93583

22. https://www.zaikei.co.jp/releases/1687357/

23. https://newspicks.com/news/7070176/

24. https://newspicks.com/news/7158226

25. https://solver-story.com/solution/2855/ Jawad Haqbeen ( talk) 09:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply

A list of links does not necessarily indicate significant coverage; someone has to evaluate the links, which I invite someone else to do since I don't read Japanese and it would be a lot of work to translate and evaluate all of those. As I said above, the Japanese sources that I reviewed that were cited in the article were an interview and press releases, neither of which are considered independent sources. And multiple sources can publish essentially the same press release. The sources need to meet all the relevant criteria in WP:GNG. Biogeographist ( talk) 17:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Biogeographist True. If possible please invite someone who know Japanese to do so.

Also, please find link bellow, a video recently published by Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun showing D-Agree in action.

https://www.nikkan.co.jp/articles/view/641340?fbclid=IwAR1lIn75v7XDCrX-Sr2JUGEkGWdFaupUdD_8isZk1vAKYDED4EaH-lJbU9k Jawad Haqbeen ( talk) 02:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Biogeographist Please find another link bellow, which showing D-Agree in action in Kabul city.

The video published by Kabul Municipal Government official Youtube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUyAmUxMCIg&t=1s Jawad Haqbeen ( talk) 02:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Biogeographist @ Oaktree b @ PamD

Through above entire discussion, I am still not clear enough, why an entire paragraph in UN report is not substantial enough for a stub. Have you missed reading of entire paragraph or you find any other difficulty with that paragraph?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 12:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

A paragraph in a sixty-something-page report does not make a subject notable. Biogeographist ( talk) 20:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• • Encyclopedic review update: Co incidentally Draft:D-Agree had come under my observation on 22nd June when I was searching some thing for Dyk, just till today's review I thought article being too technical for me I requested another technical Dyk participant for review notability chances for the draft and they expressed that not their area of work that made me think the topic much more difficult (That happened because main contributing author is technical). But when I re reviewed just now it my self on main contributor's request topic for encyclopedic purposes is not much technical needs just breif rewriting.

I have segregated Municipal corporation reports and Municipal semi advertorials in external link section being primary sources. May be those can be deleted if necessary.

There is at least one research paper in a journal, reports by 2 United Nations agencies and 1–1 independent news paper reports in 2 Japanese news papers namely The Asahi Shimbun, CNET make the topic encyclopedic point of view notable and very much suitable as stub article.

I will not recommend AfC draftification since usually AfCs will not pass a stub article.

If at all users are not comfortable and wish to delete then userify it in main contributor's user space. I will help them for achieving comfortable stub status. It might take take me a week or so to complete the task looking at other tasks in my hand.

Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 11:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Deleteor Merge to Draft:D-Agree if there is non-overlapping content. Not ready for mainspace in current malformed state. Pam D 11:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark ( talk) 02:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete The list of sources given above is all press-releases or passing mentions. I only find one conference paper in Jstage [1], so this isn't a widely discussed item in Japanese circles either. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  Full results of the search here: [2] Oaktree b ( talk) 04:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Oaktree b Beside that there are many Peer review sources (journals =3+; international conferences =8+) exists which widely discussed D-Agree and Collagree platforms (the first version of D-Agree), foundations, development, and applications.

  Please see bellow:

  (1) In GROUP DECISION AND NEGOTIATION Journal (Springer, Impact Factor: 2.9), which widely discussed D-Agree

  (2) In IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems Journal (IF: 0.6) which discussed the first version of D-Agree, called Collagree

  (3) an international conference reported D-Agree;

  (4) an international conference reported D-Agree.

  (5) an international conference reported collagree, firs version of D-Agree; (6)an international conference reported D-Agree development feature; (7) an international conference reported D-Agree development feature; (8)an international conference reported collagree, firs version of D-Agree; (9) an international conference reported collagree, firs version of D-Agree;

  (10) In Journal of architecture and planning (Transactions of AIJ), reported collagree, firs version of D-Agree

  (11) an international conference reported collagree, firs version of D-Agree;

  References:

  1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10726-021-09765-8;

  2. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/transinf/E101.D/4/E101.D_2016IIP0013/_pdf/-char/ja

  3. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=8893866&casa_token=EnTaMrZMEOwAAAAA:hciC4upbnj4SGd0YiQQINrxX-dJuGsf-0MnnhzX0OMmupF0fyrxGChddoGMayihqMYzANNrJUisf&tag=1

  4. https://aiforgood2019.github.io/papers/IJCAI19-AI4SG_paper_1.pdf

  5. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsd/3/1/3_1_61/_pdf

  6. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/pjsai/JSAI2019/0/JSAI2019_2F1E302/_pdf/-char/ja

  7. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=8950662&casa_token=vnOY94cgNs8AAAAA:vqE1zKEPvE_NRaXVh5iNJlBHTuCqmW-aXgov5IEz7UNxfi99szS7L_e1HPU-ucQNF4dbYuE8zs0G

  8. https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings-article/ica/2018/08460069/13xI8A6FLUy

  9. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsd/3/1/3_1_61/_pdf

  10. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/aija/82/742/82_3169/_pdf/-char/ja

  11. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8015299

  Would those be ok to maintain article as stub and say subject is not widely discussed? I don't think so. Jawad Haqbeen ( talk) 01:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  I can't comment on the sources, especially number 10, as the article is in Japanese. It would be best if you can update the article with the relevant information in each one listed above. I have no interest in doing so. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  The academic papers aren't independent, so they don't indicate notability. They aren't widely cited either. Jawad Haqbeen is a co-author of some of them, by the way. Biogeographist ( talk) 20:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Biogeographist First, I (Jawad Haqbeen) am not a co-author of sources (n=11) mentioned above. Second, what is your definition from widely cited? One of collagree related paper got more than 80 citation. I invite you to see Google Scholar for full citation: [3] Jawad Haqbeen ( talk) 00:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  That paper has a higher citation count than the rest, but Google Scholar includes self-citations by the same authors, so you have to subtract those. Anyway, the the fact that the papers aren't independent is most relevant to the notability issue. Biogeographist ( talk) 16:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ BiogeographistThen, I don't want to get into an argument with you anymore, please follow the rules. Jawad Haqbeen ( talk) 06:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Biogeographist As my last Comment : More than 30 computer and social science researchers has been involved in foundations, development, and application of D-Agree and collagree for a period of 10 years and you still calling that it doesn't indicate notability.

  For instance, see the author list of paper bellow which published in a good journal, how many author involved? Yes, it is ten author but still don't indicated notability.

  [4] Jawad Haqbeen ( talk) 07:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  There is nothing in WP:GNG that says that the number of co-authors of a non-independent academic paper is a measure of notability on Wikipedia. As part of their jobs, academics are expected to publish about the work they have done. In general, there are countless academic papers about work that is not suitable to be the subject of stand-alone articles on Wikipedia; the work's non-notability by Wikipedia's standards does not mean that the work is not good or did not require considerable effort. Such an academic paper may in fact be valuable as a reference in another article but is not useful for determining notability here because of the publication's non-independent nature. Biogeographist ( talk) 18:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  Greetings @ Biogeographist Please do not take otherwise, personally it is okay for me if suitable content gets merged in some article still, as of now, I wish to continue experimenting through some discussion processes since end of the day @ Jawad Haqbeen and their institution research in " 'crowd sourcing dependent', software platform for public utility."

  In brief I wish this discussion remains open for another week and half or so.

  Thanks

  Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 07:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted break

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reconsider in the light of the many new sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Draftify: the article isn't ready for main space. Sentences like "D-Agree supports large-scale online human to human discourse with a focus to facilitate stakeholder's information-centric participation to reach consensus about urban planning and development decisions" suggest that a lot of re-writing is necessary. That sort of morass of buzzwords needs translation into straightforward English appropriate for an encyclopaedia. I would recommend proper draftification rather than moving to any individual's user-space because if the subject proves to be notable, I think collaborative authorship is more likely to create a good article than individual efforts. Elemimele ( talk) 06:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I reviewed available sources policies and inputs and updated the article again on 2022 July, 12 th and 13th. I wanted to refer discussion @ one more forum but I realized policies do not allow so until this discussion is closed, so I am adding my comment here itself.

• • After reading policy details I had feeling, it would have been better to have placed a notability tag and article talk page discussion and followed WP:BEFORE process before this AfD. That would have given sufficient opportunity to update the article as stub properly and avoid confusion and miss–perception on part of various editors and Wikipedia:Follow the leader effect.

• • WP:ATD states ".. If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. .." WP:ATD-E states ".. If an article on a notable topic severely fails in sourcing ( say the verifiability or neutral point of view policies), it may be reduced to a stub .."

• • WP:SIGCOV states ".. Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

According to User:Biogeographist U.N. reports are reliable enough, but while considering WP:GNG he seems missing on statement of purpose mentioned in above given in WP:SIGCOV expects only as much content which would not necessitate original research to write a (stub) article. Is User:Biogeographist setting of higher bar of inclusion than what is necessary?

• • Similarly there were few Japanese news sources which were press release dependent, but news article by Japan's 4th largest news media The Asahi Shimbun seems very much independent and not a press release.
  • What remains in the article is which specific municipal corporations the software platform is implemented in. Though websites of respective Municipal corporations in Japan and Afghanistan are primary but reliable enough sources for verification that really software had been implemented there, then why we are insisting upon setting a higher bar of inclusion than what is necessary?
  • Last but not least software detail needed in the article is what is software back end and what is user interface like. For that any research paper not written by institutions own professors/ researchers need to suffice. Whether we really need to setting a higher bar of inclusion than what is necessary?
  • Last but not least, Expectations of User:Elemimele seems to calls in some copy edit of the stub and not necessarily a draftification. While updating the article I became more sure that article is not likely to get any more content than platform the software works and names of municipal corporations so sending it to draft is not likely to increase content in any exponential manner. The draft AfC process and users their too usually put higher bar of inclusion than what is necessary for just a stub article. I believe that it is fit as a stub article, if not then merge in some article, IMHO but not much point in sending to draft at present stage.

I hope this comment may help other users to take a re–look into the article D-Agree.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 08:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Stub class is not a consolation prize for a non-notable subject. And judging from the current state of the deletion discussion, it appears that sending the article to AfD was the right decision. I don't see any "confusion and misperception" here. Biogeographist ( talk) 02:13, 15 July 2022 (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.