Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Focus-Metaphor

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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Focus-Metaphor

Edit history shows that this is from an unpublished thesis of the contributer, which would make it clear original research. Was prodded by another editor, prod removed, so taking it to afd MartinRe 10:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 11:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator (and thanks for first trying not biting the newcomers.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC) - changing to abstain after discussion below and creator's laudable work - verifiability seems okay, notability still rather borderline. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No worries, thanks for noticing :) MartinRe 11:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't it make it so much easier when the author actually has a footnote on the page admitting it's OR? Fan1967 12:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The theory described in this article is no original research, it is published with Springer (see: [[1]]) and has been presented at an international conference on human-computer interaction (Interact 2005 - see: [[2]]).

It presents a novel approach to user-centred interface design, so its not established yet, but well accepted in the research community (if you count peer-reviewed international conferences). Obviously I am the researcher working on this theory, but my description of the approach here on Wikipedia is by all means meant to be objective.

You can find out more about my work on: [[3]]. I am part of the Human-Centred Systems Group at University College London. Here you can also find that a second paper on this approach will be published in September in Germany with Oldenbourg, another well known publisher for research along with a presentation at Mensch & Computer conference.

I will revise this article asap besides all the other stuff I have to do, so that it fits as good as possible with the wikipedia standards.

Please let me know what other concerns anyone has with sharing this approach on wikipedia. You can also get in touch with me personally, as I think that the means of communication through wikipedia are by far to complicated and inefficient... --Slaqua 17:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The publication record indeed strikes me as if it might make this borderline verifiable in our sense. I might reconsider if the article got a better intro that stated more clearly the context and scope of this idea: Name the field of science this belong to, give a proper definition, explain its claim to notability, etc. I'm still not entirely sure, though. Not every novel technical idea that somebody publishes somewhere gets an article here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• update I have changed the article as requested. Any further changes necessary ? --81.1.118.241 00:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I suspect it still doesn't pass muster. It is now a report about a concept introduced in a 2005 paper which described it as "A Novel Concept". It does not, however, appear to be a notable novel concept unless you can show that this concept has been widely reported or cited. Fan1967 02:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry for causing any inconveniences in this "deletion process", I am new to the "adding stuff to wikipedia process". BUT I have checked the Wikipedia policy on verifiability, which I assume is the crucial one right now (relating to the above comment).

It states: "For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review. It would be checked by a reporter, an editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it might be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. These checks and balances exist to ensure that accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper ... If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source." As I mentioned earlier, this research has been peer-reviewed by various experts of the field and confirmed for publication. It is published with Springer, a very reputable publisher for research. It has been presented at a reputable international conference, being acknowledged by fellow researches. Further work on this theory is being published and presented in September (again reputable publisher and conference - it's German chapter of ACM). I think this kind of review process (taking months for every paper) is by far more accurate and reliable than publishing stuff at a newspaper - which all you should know. So stating newspaper level verification as a measure for reliability in wikipedia policies should than by far be met for this article. --Slaqua 14:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It seems also interesting that my vote for keeping the article has been deleted - no idea who that was - maybe you guys should also check your objectivity ?! - Or teach me, if I am not allowed to vote ?! --Slaqua 14:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment, that appears to have been removed in error by IP address 81.1.118.241, when they posted the update above[4]. I've taken the liberty of putting it back in again. Regards, MartinRe 15:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. see below Being presented at a conference, and published in the procedings, is not necessarily peer-reviewed. I do not list my papers which were presented in that manner in my publication list. I don't see it as yet meeting WP:V. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sorry, do I get something wrong here? These papers have been peer-reviewed, in fact by six international researchers - or do you want to say that I lie ? I do not really understand the measures with which people seem to judge here. I do not know what things you have published, or where - feel free to let me know. I clearly state, who I am, what I do, where it has been published. If you feel that is not sufficient for Wikipedia policies - of course I cannot say anything, after all its a democratic collaborative tool, but please keep in mind these policies when you judge yourself and stay objective.... thanks a lot. --Slaqua 12:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I'm just saying that conference proceedings are not necessarily peer-reviewed to the extent of "traditional" journals, in that what was presented is what is published, rather than what was invited to have been presented (which was subject to peer review). (The publications now in the references do not qualify as peer-reviewed. Your thesis does, but that touches on WP:VAIN.)

Changed vote to Delete without prejudice. The problem is a mixture of WP:V and WP:VAIN, so that if someone other than the primary authors of the concept writes an article, quoting published, fully peer-reviewed works (other than conference proceedings, theses, etc.), a technically correct article could be written. It's clear that WP:N is met, as there are articles about web sites based on this model (or metaphor, if you prefer), but the correct, verifiable, name is open for consideration. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: First of all thanks for the productive criticism Arthur, I honestly appreciate the going through the arguments, rather than just voting for delete and then leaving it there. Nevertheless, I am not sure, whether maybe in your area of mathmatics, the common way to publish your work is a different one. I know that especially in social sciences, much focus is on journal publications, often based on the final thesis of a PhD. I am not sure how it is with maths ?! However, in computer science, most researchers publish primarily at important conferences like CHI (other ACM's), IEEE conferences or also Interact. That might have to do with the fast changes in the field that you as a researcher want to stay ahead of as much as possible of course. In terms of peer-reviews, again I am not sure how it works in other fields, but the paper I submit for peer-review is finished paper, including all theory, all experiments, all analysis. What you do after the peer-review are minor revisions for the final version to go to print with the publisher and maybe in response to some reviewers comments. --Slaqua 00:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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.