- 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. — Cryptic 13:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Mwetoolkit
- Mwetoolkit ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NSOFT. Page was previously deleted for this reason after being PROD'd by me. In this undeletion request, creator Ceramisch claims to count 93 citations for the software on GScholar, but I could only find the following citation figures for mwetoolkit papers by C. Ramisch et al.:
- 6 citations for Fast and flexible MWE candidate generation with the mwetoolkit
- 29 citations for Multiword expressions in the wild?: the mwetoolkit comes in handy, including a self-citation from the previous paper
- 17 citations for mwetoolkit: a Framework for Multiword Expression Identification, including self-citations from both previous papers
(And there's overlap between the 29 and the 17 as well.)
To be fair, there is a book, again by C. Ramisch, and published by Springer, but that has no citations at all (not surprising, given that its publication date is 2015) and doesn't only cover the software but the theory of multi-word expression extraction in general. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 12:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Mwetoolkit author's response
I am the author of the Mwetoolkit and of the respective Wikipedia page. When I stated that the mwetoolkit had 93 citations, I meant 93 mentions, sorry about that. The citation counts above seem accurate to me. I would like to add 2 other articles that describe specific parts or improvements of the mwetoolkit, and also my PhD thesis. The citations have possible overlaps with the ones above:
- 5 citations for Une plate-forme générique et ouverte pour l'acquisition des expressions polylexicales
- 8 citations for A generic framework for multiword expressions treatment: from acquisition to applications
- 5 citations for A generic and open framework for multiword expressions treatment: from acquisition to applications
I performed a specific search in the ACL Anthology and found 60 mentions to the mwetoolkit in papers, from which I identified 9 of my papers. Of course they include the mentions in Google Scholar, but each article appears only once. I also regularly receive emails of people using the toolkit and who have questions about it. I think it is useful to have a Wikipedia page that describes the tool to the community and to the general public. I can largely improve the current stub with the help of other users and developers of the toolkit.
I believe that this demonstrates the notability and usefulness of the software in the research community in general. However, I let the administrators judge as to whether this meets the thresholds for WP:NSOFT or not.
Ceramisch ( talk) 13:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. The sources presented here seem to fail WP:RS policy; they don't seem to be peer reviewed; the websites seem to be just generic paper repositories (see [1]). In other words, just hosts for self-published content. And WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 22:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 01:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I was unable to find multiple, in depth, secondary, reliable sources discussing this software. Thus the software seems to fail general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I could believe that some of the conference papers noted above are peer reviewed, which would make them reliable, but they are still primary and not independent of the program's creators. Citations are nice, but are not considered in depth. My sense is that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has elapsed for in-depth secondary RS to have been written and published. -- Mark viking ( talk) 19:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - author may want to consider getting to know some tech journalists (newspapers and online publications, not bloggers), in an effort to engender some neutral press coverage. Earflaps ( talk) 20:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per Mark Viking above. Also, author should be STRONGLY discouraged from editing the page should it be recreated in the future per WP:COI. PianoDan ( talk) 19:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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. — Cryptic 13:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Mwetoolkit
- Mwetoolkit ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NSOFT. Page was previously deleted for this reason after being PROD'd by me. In this undeletion request, creator Ceramisch claims to count 93 citations for the software on GScholar, but I could only find the following citation figures for mwetoolkit papers by C. Ramisch et al.:
- 6 citations for Fast and flexible MWE candidate generation with the mwetoolkit
- 29 citations for Multiword expressions in the wild?: the mwetoolkit comes in handy, including a self-citation from the previous paper
- 17 citations for mwetoolkit: a Framework for Multiword Expression Identification, including self-citations from both previous papers
(And there's overlap between the 29 and the 17 as well.)
To be fair, there is a book, again by C. Ramisch, and published by Springer, but that has no citations at all (not surprising, given that its publication date is 2015) and doesn't only cover the software but the theory of multi-word expression extraction in general. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 12:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Mwetoolkit author's response
I am the author of the Mwetoolkit and of the respective Wikipedia page. When I stated that the mwetoolkit had 93 citations, I meant 93 mentions, sorry about that. The citation counts above seem accurate to me. I would like to add 2 other articles that describe specific parts or improvements of the mwetoolkit, and also my PhD thesis. The citations have possible overlaps with the ones above:
- 5 citations for Une plate-forme générique et ouverte pour l'acquisition des expressions polylexicales
- 8 citations for A generic framework for multiword expressions treatment: from acquisition to applications
- 5 citations for A generic and open framework for multiword expressions treatment: from acquisition to applications
I performed a specific search in the ACL Anthology and found 60 mentions to the mwetoolkit in papers, from which I identified 9 of my papers. Of course they include the mentions in Google Scholar, but each article appears only once. I also regularly receive emails of people using the toolkit and who have questions about it. I think it is useful to have a Wikipedia page that describes the tool to the community and to the general public. I can largely improve the current stub with the help of other users and developers of the toolkit.
I believe that this demonstrates the notability and usefulness of the software in the research community in general. However, I let the administrators judge as to whether this meets the thresholds for WP:NSOFT or not.
Ceramisch ( talk) 13:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. The sources presented here seem to fail WP:RS policy; they don't seem to be peer reviewed; the websites seem to be just generic paper repositories (see [1]). In other words, just hosts for self-published content. And WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 22:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 01:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I was unable to find multiple, in depth, secondary, reliable sources discussing this software. Thus the software seems to fail general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I could believe that some of the conference papers noted above are peer reviewed, which would make them reliable, but they are still primary and not independent of the program's creators. Citations are nice, but are not considered in depth. My sense is that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has elapsed for in-depth secondary RS to have been written and published. -- Mark viking ( talk) 19:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - author may want to consider getting to know some tech journalists (newspapers and online publications, not bloggers), in an effort to engender some neutral press coverage. Earflaps ( talk) 20:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per Mark Viking above. Also, author should be STRONGLY discouraged from editing the page should it be recreated in the future per WP:COI. PianoDan ( talk) 19:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.