Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCVC Speech Dataset

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. Obviously, this close does not preclude a possible meger/redirect after appropriate discussion on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PCVC Speech Dataset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable dataset. The article is based entirely on the author's own publication and lacks any other independent expert sources that cover this specific dataset in sufficient detail (refs #3-5 are not about PCVC). A search for other secondary expert sources revealed no coverage at all. GermanJoe (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As anyone can see on Google scholar, Researchgate, Arxiv, and other scientific sources, This dataset is a notable dataset and accepted as an standard in one conference and one ISI journal. Also the dataset is downloadable for free to see weather it is fake or not. thank you.Sabemalek (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Moved the misplaced comment to bottom of talkpage (no change in content), please add new comments at the bottom (see also WP:DISCUSSAFD and WP:TP). GermanJoe (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Scholar is a web search engine and source index, it doesn't convey any kind of "notability" - please see WP:GNG for Wikipedia's definition of the term as project-internal criterion. Neither do Arxiv and Researchgate, who simply host submitted content. The conference paper has been presented just in 2018, and there is zero evidence that other academics and expert publications have reviewed and discussed this dataset, let alone accepted is "as a standard". The mentioned journal simply republishes submitted conference papers and similar primary content (as noted on their description at [1]). Please provide independent secondary publications from other academics or experts, who discuss this dataset in some detail - not only your own initial publication. A last point: I never claimed that the dataset was "fake". It is not a notable encyclopedic topic, but that does not imply any judgement about its quality (a lot of non-notable publications are perfectly valid and accurate). GermanJoe (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In any conference and such a journal with 1.1 impact factor, also in arxiv there is a judgment process which indicates weather a publication and a dataset is notable or not. this dataset is a new dataset so it needs an opportunity to be in Wikipedia for getting more citations. If this article will be removed from Wikipedia it would be less opportunity to the research society to use this unique dataset. Also the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCVC Speech Dataset that was in Wikipedia for more than 9 months was nominated to be deleted that makes me wonder how it could be possible that such an article after 9 months of existence in Wikipedia nominated for deleting. Both of datasets just by one person (GermanJoe).Sabemalek (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Arguments like this dataset is a new dataset so it needs an opportunity to be in Wikipedia for getting more citations show a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. This kind of promotional showcasing to raise the topic's citation count is prohibited on Wikipedia. GermanJoe (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a dataset has no Wikipedia page it would be very difficult for research community to find and refer to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabemalek (talk • contribs) 16:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't see a good keep argument here. I smell WP:COI and WP:TOOSOON issues. I have left a note at Talk:Persian phonology. This article was accepted through WP:AFC by Legacypac. Unless we hear for them, I would assume that advocates keep. If there is no further input I would suggest closing as no consensus for now. ~Kvng (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial merge to List of datasets for machine learning research. No point entirely eliminating mention of the dataset, as quite good work has gone into explaining it, with pretty good phrasing at that. That said, references are lacking, and a standalone topic seems hard to defend at this point. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. I must have accepted it based on the extensive refs and well written article. It does not seem promotional to me. Not an area I'm an expert in though. Legacypac (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfC-reviewed version had exactly 1 somewhat suitable reference, and that's a conference paper by the article author. Out of the other 4 references, 1 was a trivial Github listing, and 3 are publications that have no direct relevance for the article topic (#3-#5), but are used for synthesis. The number of independent experts discussing this topic aside from the original author is exactly zero. The article clearly fails the sourcing requirements of WP:GNG. GermanJoe (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (as nominator) - of course uninvolved editors could merge a brief mention into the main list, even if notability isn't sufficient for a stand-alone article. Or the author could post a suggestion for such a mention on the list's talkpage Talk:List of datasets for machine learning research (per WP:SELFCITE). GermanJoe (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per user:31.54.34.61. There does not seem to be sufficient notability to support a standalone article, but there is enough to support a mention in the specified article. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2019 (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.