Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnetminer

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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arnetminer[edit]

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

This does not appear to be an entirely notable website. On close inspection, none of the three references are related to this topic, and/or they are not third-party, reliable sources. This is a vanity piece that certainly fails WP:N and honestly appears to qualify as WP:A7. — Timneu22 · talk 10:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the three references are to the "introduction" page on the ArnetMiner site itself, an academic paper entitled "ArnetMiner: extraction and mining of academic social networks" and another academic paper demonstrating the use of ArnetMiner. All of them are clearly "related to the topic". Two of them are peer-reviewed academic publications - the gold standard of "third-party, reliable sources". Thparkth (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article introduces arnetminer, which is a comparable system with many other academic systems List_of_academic_databases_and_search_engines. I think it is useful and should be not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.34.20.19 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to ArnetMiner. The site was created by Jie Tang, so gScholar shows many articles which him as the principal author, but his articles receive quite a few citations by others for his work. It seems to be well-accepted as a data mining resource. See refs: [1] [2] [3] [4] "Searching and matching tools are also appropriate for exposing the institution’s expertise to the outside world to attract funding and student enrollment. ArnetMiner is currently the most representative example of such tools." And for more secondary articles (not written or even collaborated with J. Tang): [5]. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OK, it's pretty specialist, but it's notable within academic circles, and clearly verifiable. Thparkth (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2010 (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.