Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semantic social network

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic social network

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

This is not a commonly used term, this article was created by its originator, and references are mostly papers written by promoters of the concept, and a couple web links of semantic web-promoting websites with questionable reliability for establishing notability. Thus, it fails to meet the general notability guideline. --Michael White^T·C 04:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep?. Lots of cites in GS and GB. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

That's true, and I probably should have checked that more. Some of the matches are not quite germane. GS search for "semantic social network" -author:neumann -"semantic social network modeling" -"semantic social network analysis" -"social semantic network" returns 595 results but a lot of them are in citations or passing uses of the phrase. "Semantic social network" is a term that has probably been used a fair amount by semantic web researchers but no notable semantic social networks exist and the term does not seem to have been significantly used in any reliable sources independent of semantic web researchers.--Michael White^T·C 05:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an emerging discipline, fairly well documented, nomination does not meet WP:DEL-REASON 009o9 (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 1 May 2016 (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.