442:
Springer
Cognitive Computation, and conferences, e.g., FLAIRS and ICDM, clearly provide evidence for the relevance and novelty of the approach. On 1st March 2012, in fact, sentic computing was selected as one of the best case studies to be put forward to the UK Government for the assessment of impact in the REF (Research Excellence Framework). Moreover, the motivations behind sentic computing are at the base of the organization of internationally referred workshops, e.g., the IEEE ICDM SENTIRE workshop series, and special issues, e.g., the IEEE Intelligent System special issue on Concept-Level Opinion and Sentiment Analysis. Eventually, a news article about sentic computing appeared in APCOMTEC on 7th September 2010. —
248:- no RS. All the papers cited are primary, with COI by Erik Cambria. A news search on "Sentic computing" returns nothing but the WP article. There are one or two books but these turn out to be chapters by Cambria in collections of academic papers. I couldn't find evidence that anybody else had picked up on the term, so notability is not established.
481:
Note that a Google
Scholar search shows that most mentions of the term are in Cambria's papers, and that the most widely cited paper on the list (with only 19 citations) is mostly self-cited. Also, the workshop series is organised by Cambria. It seems like the author is trying to promote his own work
441:
The article has been edited and cleaned to comply with
Knowledge (XXG) quality standards. Because sentic computing is a recently-proposed approach, the term is still not commonly used/referred. However, the many publications in top AI journals, e.g., Elsevier Expert Systems with Applications and
330:
a multi-disciplinary approach to opinion mining and sentiment analysis at the crossroads between affective computing and common sense computing, which exploits both computer and social sciences to better recognize, interpret, and process opinions and sentiments over the
160:
266:
501:
The term "sentic computing" seems to occur only in papers by
Cambria, who seems to be the author of this WP article. Cambria's papers have very few non-self citations. Fails
288:
121:
191:
The topic does not seem to meet the notability criterion, since all the sources are primary sources by the same authors, who also seem to be responsible for the wiki page (
154:
413:
317:, so it's not surprising that this is one guy's theory. It is also gravely suspected of having to do with nothing more consequential than
94:
89:
510:
98:
487:
200:
17:
399:
385:
81:
468:
425:
230:
175:
142:
354:
537:
40:
483:
196:
136:
518:
491:
476:
446:
433:
358:
341:
302:
280:
257:
238:
204:
63:
132:
514:
253:
371:
367:
214:
85:
402:), the two main contributors to the article in question. Not only that, but his articles have repeatedly (
456:
533:
407:
403:
393:
379:
182:
36:
506:
375:
77:
69:
168:
249:
218:
298:
276:
148:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
532:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
322:
318:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
443:
389:
338:
192:
452:
325:
314:
52:. Clearly the current consensus, with no prejudice against an article at a later date.
462:
419:
224:
502:
59:
294:
272:
115:
451:
If it's too new, then you may have to wait a while before it's encyclopedic. See
350:
334:
213:
Erik
Cambria seems a little too popular in the reflist. If it contains new and
349:
COI spam. Text is a mess and honestly I don't think it says much of anything.
54:
366:
Not sure if anyone noticed this yet, but the author is both blatantly
217:
information, then it could be added to the existing paragraph at
526:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
412:
For the record, I have reported the user for sockpuppetry:
313:. The rather vague description of this has the ring of
111:
107:
103:
167:
414:
Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Erikcambria
267:
list of Social science-related deletion discussions
181:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
540:). No further edits should be made to this page.
289:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
8:
287:Note: This debate has been included in the
265:Note: This debate has been included in the
459:terms without giving it enough context. —
286:
264:
410:) been flagged as copyright violations.
482:via WP, as mentioned by others above.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
339:killing the human spirit since 2003!
24:
1:
319:yet another gee-whiz method
557:
519:02:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
492:21:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
477:20:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
447:13:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
219:Sentiment analysis#Methods
64:04:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
455:. Also, you use a lot of
434:19:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
359:16:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
342:15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
303:14:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
281:14:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
258:11:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
239:02:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
205:00:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
529:Please do not modify it.
484:Anonymous but Registered
197:Anonymous but Registered
32:Please do not modify it.
315:original synthesis
48:The result was
305:
292:
283:
270:
548:
531:
474:
471:
465:
431:
428:
422:
293:
271:
236:
233:
227:
193:User:Erikcambria
186:
185:
171:
119:
101:
78:Sentic computing
70:Sentic computing
34:
556:
555:
551:
550:
549:
547:
546:
545:
544:
538:deletion review
527:
473:
469:
463:
461:
430:
426:
420:
418:
357:
335:Smerdis of Tlön
326:on the Internet
235:
231:
225:
223:
128:
92:
76:
73:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
554:
552:
543:
542:
522:
521:
496:
495:
494:
479:
467:
436:
424:
411:
361:
353:
344:
307:
306:
284:
261:
260:
242:
241:
229:
189:
188:
125:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
553:
541:
539:
535:
530:
524:
523:
520:
516:
512:
511:202.124.72.69
508:
504:
500:
497:
493:
489:
485:
480:
478:
475:
472:
466:
458:
454:
450:
449:
448:
445:
440:
437:
435:
432:
429:
423:
415:
409:
405:
401:
398:
395:
391:
387:
384:
381:
377:
373:
372:WP:SOCKPUPPET
369:
368:WP:SELFCITING
365:
362:
360:
356:
352:
348:
345:
343:
340:
336:
332:
327:
324:
320:
316:
312:
309:
308:
304:
300:
296:
290:
285:
282:
278:
274:
268:
263:
262:
259:
255:
251:
250:Chiswick Chap
247:
244:
243:
240:
237:
234:
228:
220:
216:
215:WP:VERIFIABLE
212:
209:
208:
207:
206:
202:
198:
194:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
528:
525:
509:applies. --
498:
460:
457:WP:TECHNICAL
438:
417:
396:
382:
363:
346:
329:
310:
245:
222:
210:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
507:WP:YOURSELF
444:Erikcambria
390:Erikcambria
376:Cambriaerik
323:advertising
155:free images
534:talk page
464:JmaJeremy
421:JmaJeremy
355:contribs.
295:• Gene93k
273:• Gene93k
226:JmaJeremy
37:talk page
536:or in a
505:. Also,
470:CONTRIBS
427:contribs
400:contribs
386:contribs
232:contribs
122:View log
39:or in a
161:WP refs
149:scholar
95:protect
90:history
499:Delete
453:WP:NEO
388:) and
374:. See
370:and a
351:OSborn
347:Delete
311:Delete
246:Delete
211:Delete
133:Google
99:delete
50:delete
176:JSTOR
137:books
116:views
108:watch
104:links
60:talk
16:<
515:talk
503:WP:N
488:talk
439:Note
394:talk
380:talk
364:Note
331:Web.
321:for
299:talk
277:talk
254:talk
201:talk
169:FENS
143:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
183:TWL
120:– (
55:DGG
517:)
490:)
406:,
337:-
333:-
328::
301:)
291:.
279:)
269:.
256:)
203:)
195:)
163:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
62:)
513:(
486:(
416:—
408:2
404:1
397:·
392:(
383:·
378:(
297:(
275:(
252:(
221:—
199:(
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
118:)
80:(
58:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.