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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic parameterization[edit]

Semantic parameterization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Original research (published just this year), conflict of interest (Travis Breaux writing aboutTravis Breaux), and there seems to be no indepentend third-party sources confirming "Semantic parameterization is a conceptual modeling process developed by Travis Breaux". Travis Breaux seems to be using this article to get this fact confirmed. Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Dekker's claims are factually inaccurate and inconsistent with the Wikipedia policy on original research, conflicts of interest and notability:

(1) The Wikipedia article on semantic parameterization is not original research. This Wikipedia article summarizes an earlier work that was previously published in an independent, peer-reviewed journal and this summary is not original research, by definition.

From the Wikipedia:No_original_research#Citing_oneself_policy: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy." Conforming with this policy, the Wikipedia article on semantic parameterization is written in the third person, is neutral by referencing the work of others and restricting language to the unbiased facts of the process.

(2) This article does not violate the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, which states: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." The article contains no self-promotional, biographical information nor does it stand to provide financial or monetary benefits to the editors.

(3) There is no question as to whether semantic parameterization is a process, this fact is established in the previously published paper. The question is whether this process should be summarized and connected to related articles within Wikipedia on knowledge representation, controlled languages and Description Logic, to name a few. In addition, there are presently at least five, independent and notable third party sources that confirm semantic parameterization is a process:

[1] Discovering and Understanding the Multi-dimensional Correlations among Regulatory Requirements with Applications to Risk Assessment, R.A. Ghandi, PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina - Charlotte, May 2008.

[2] "Annotating Regulations Using Cerno: An Application to Italian Documents." N. Zeni, N. Kiyavitskaya, J.R. Cordy, L. Mich, J. Mylopoulos, 3rd International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, pp. 1437-1442, 2008.

[3] "Towards a Framework for Tracking Legal Compliance in Healthcare." S. Ghanavati, D. Amyot, L. Peyton. Advanced Information Systems Engineering, LNCS vol. 4495/2007, pp. 218-232, 2007.

[4] Compliance Framework for Business Processes Based on URN A, S. Ghanavati, Masters Thesis, Ottawa University of Canada, May 2007.

[5] "A Requirements Management Framework for Privacy Compliance." S. Ghanavati, D. Amyot, L. Peyton. 10th Workshop on Requirements Engineering, Toronto, Canada, May 17-18, 2007, pp. 149-159. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdbreaux (talk • contribs) 02:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. These contempary sources doesn't seems enough... and the 4th a master thesis...!? and 3th and 5th from the same author. In the current article you still only use your own work as direct source of your accomplishments. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Dekker's assessment appears subjective and based on opinion without reference to a standard by which these evaluations are made fairly and consistently across Wikipedia articles. Notability is not decided by one person. How many sources are sufficient to determine a source is notable? The PhD and Master's theses [1,4] are works of considerable effort that were reviewed by a panel of experts who hold PhDs in a relevant field of study. The peer-reviewed publications [2,3,5] were co-authored by experts with over 20 years of experience. The five sources above are substantial intellectual and notable works deemed worthy of publication by independent reviewers. Contrary, again, to Marcel Dekker's claim, the Wikipedia article cites four other sources upon which semantic parameterization is based, including:

1. ^ a b C. Potts, K. Takahashi, and A.I. Anton, "Inquiry-based requirements analysis", IEEE Software 11(2): 21–32, 1994.
2. ^ A. Dardenne, A. van Lamsweerde and S. Fickas, "Goal-Directed Requirements Acquisition", Science of Computer Programming v. 20, North Holland, 1993, pp. 3-50.
3. ^ J. Gruber, Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics, North Holland, New York, 1976.
4. ^ C. Fillmore, "The Case for Case", Universals in Linguistic Theory, Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, New York, 1968.

How many other sources are needed to appease Mr. Dekker's personal interests? Moreover, the Wikipedia article is not a representation of any one person's accomplishments, but the collaboration of at least three researchers based on a foundation of prior, independent work as cited in the article. The article represents a contribution to knowledge, not the promotion of any one person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdbreaux (talk • contribs) 03:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the four references you give confirm your first statement. Now you call my remarks subjective and based on opinion without reference...?? Maybe I should have explained some more. If you state:

• Semantic parameterization is a conceptual modeling process developed by Travis Breaux...

I read here that you invented the term "Semantic parameterization", and based on the source you did this this year. Now I checked Google once more and found three of your articles on line, which I have added to the article. The first two articles are written with Annie I. Antón. So it seems you cointed the statement "Semantic parameterization is a conceptual modeling process" not by your self but with here.

But there is more. Google and Google books give only a few references to "Semantic parameterization" and several of them related to other work:

• Gast, V. (ms.). Towards a semantic parameterization of focus quantifiers - the meaning of 'at least'. draft .pdf
• Xin Zeng, Qasim Mehdi & Norman Gough(2005). "From visual semantic parameterization to graphic visualization" In: Proceedings IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 9th International Conference on Information Visualisation: July 6-8, 2005, pp. 488-493.
• David K. Lewis (1998). "Papers in Philosophical Logic" Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998
• Bonnie J. Dorr (1993). DEVELOPMENT OF CROSS-LINGUISTIC SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC PARAMETERS FOR PARSING AND GENERATION

... now I can continue

Now these references show the term "semantic parameterization" is used in several ways:

• lexical-semantic parameterization
• visual semantic parameterization, and
• semantic parameterization process.

Now you rewrote the first sentence into:

• Semantic parameterization is a conceptual modeling process for expressing natural language descriptions of a domain in first-order predicate logic.

This still seems incorrect, because you seems to be talking about one type of semantic representation. But maybe I am mistaken here. Maybe these terms are all connected. I do am interested in this field, but I am missing a general introduction in this article, explaining some more about the bigger picture here.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has now shifted towards the context into which the article should be placed, as well as towards the content and organisation of the article, and the subject. Which is not any more about whether the article should be deleted, or not. -- Crowsnest (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. I agree with Richard Cavell that "Semantic parameterization" is a legitimate academic concept. I however seriously doubt the way Tdbreaux is presenting this concept. I think his interpretation is to new to be notable. I his introduction Breaux is refering to the

• Inquiry-Cycle Model, and
• Knowledge Acquisition and autOmated Specification (KAOS) method

which doesn't seem to be notable either. I think all of those these thing are just confusing. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research.--Boffob (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The topic appears to have academic support and notability. However, as a theory coined by the author, User:Tbreaux is the wrong person to write or edit this article, by WP:COI. The keep is weak because, despite AfD not being cleanup, I don't imagine it is likely that the article, if kept, will be substantially rewritten by a third party (and will likely remain a COI problem). gnfnrf (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I don't doubt that this is a legitimate academic concept. I have some reservations about the present author being the one to write the article, since it gives an aura of ownership or otherwise removing the article from the community. But I agree with Gnfnrf: We're better off having the article than not having it. Because it's on such a technical and academic concept, we should stick with it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep (removed speedy, see MuZemike's comment below) - The subject is notable, T.D. Breaux appears (from Google Scholar) to be an expert on the field. The apparent problem is how to get the article in a (more) neutral point of view (not whether it should be deleted). Tdbreaux already himself removed his name from the disputed article lead, giving good hopes with respect to NPOV. In fact, for as far as I can see (I am not known to the subject), the article looks good as it is now, I cannot see any OR or NPOV. For instance, there is only one reference to an article by T.D. Breaux in the article, which to me seems not to be much. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability well established with the plethera of good sources. Original research not occuring, as this is all previously published information. WilyD 13:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is this a test of how many buzzwords one can get into a Wikipedia article? Stifle (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. The article needs work and editing to a more NPOV. However, POV, COI and citing oneself, while frowned upon are NOT criteria for deletion. Arguments against notability have been contradicted sufficiently, and no other complaints about the article are valid reasons to delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You provide no reason. MuZemike (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — seems to be well–referenced and verified. COI may make editing of an article or user conduct problematic, but, remember that it itself is not a valid deletion argument. Also note that speedy keep does not apply as this seems to clearly be a good faith and not a vexatious nomination. With that being said, we're approaching blizzard conditions on this discussion, anyway. MuZemike (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2008 (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.