Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OntoAgent

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. ✗plicit 12:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OntoAgent

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Notability is unclear/unsuitable for encyclopedic entry, Tame (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is so hard to understand, it's almost like gibberish.TH1980 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The two citations appear to be reliable secondary sources published in academic journals. Unfortunately, the article is written in an extreme jargon loaded manner, and the lead doesn't even clarify what field or domain the article is about (namely, AI development, which would inform a reader which set of jargon they should look up), but this can be corrected via the regular editing process, no need for WP:TNT here. Fieari (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wikilinked a few of the more confusing terms, added that it's about AI development, and cleaned up a reference. I might work on the article a little more later, as the more I'm trying to clean up and explain the jargon, the more interesting it becomes! This definitely looks like an article worth keeping! Fieari (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note - One of the three cited sources is a preprint submitted to a non-notable journal, Advances in Cognitive Systems. A preprint like this is not generally useful for demonstrating notability. Also, all of the sources cite the same small group of academics, (Marjorie McShane et al.) which is another bad sign. Notability should be shown through independent sources which provide context for why this topic has lasting encyclopedic significance. Grayfell (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to see if the article can be improved or if there is consensus to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first source lacks credibility to me: not published, no conflict of interest statement, and yet one author appears to be behind the software, which makes me conclude it is a primary source, which makes me conclude that there is a lack of secondary sources, which makes me conclude this is not notable as per WP:GNG CT55555 (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally created the article. Sadly I don't have the knowledge of Wikipedia procedures to improve the article further. Eibriel (talk) 05:12, 6 February 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.