Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AgentSpeak

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 no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AgentSpeak

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

The article seems to be self-promotion of the article creator's own product and sources. It needs secondary sourcing and evidence of notability. I have nothing against the subject, product, or article creator, but hope to generate enough interest to see that these concerns are met and the article brought up to speed for keeping. As it is now, it's woefully deficient. The COI problem is quite evident. Just as we have "biographies" here, not "autobiographies", we shouldn't have articles created by those with a significant COI. I'm sure participants will be able to point out even more relevant arguments for deleting or keeping this article. I sincerely hope that the result will be enough improvement of the article to justify keeping it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that no AfD notice has been placed on the AgentSpeak page, so isn't yet a proper AfD discussion. --Mark viking (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD should not be used to, "Generate enough interest to see that these concerns are met and the article brought up to speed for keeping." ~KvnG 18:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2013 (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.