Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory-based semantics Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Theory-based_semantics

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 delete. kur ykh 02:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theory-based semantics

This appears to be a non-notable theory advanced by one or two researchers, possibly with a commercial interest. See [1] and Talk:Knowledge Science. Beland (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 09:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 09:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. There are enough google scholar hits to warrant an article by Wikipedia standards [2], even though the topic seems completely WP:BOLLOCKS to me. VG ☎ 10:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Further analysis (thanks, Phil) shows that the expression is used with different meanings by other authors. I don't see evidence that Ballard's Ph.D. thesis, on which this article is based, has gained a significant degree of acceptance. VG ☎ 15:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think you can assume that those Google Scholar hits are about this subject. Going by the snippets displayed by Google most are about such things as "possibility theoery-based semantics", "set theory-based semantics", "model theory-based semantics", "information theory-based semantics", "stit-theory-based semantics"(sic), and "graph theory-based semantics". We need more evidence that this concept has any currency beyond its originator's works. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The actual article seems to be mostly a dogpile of abstract nouns without much sense or reference to the world of shoes, ships, and sealing-wax, typical of the knowledge management walled garden, and as such likely relating to some kind of management theory or computer programming method, and as such I share the nominator's fear of commercial motive. As Phil Bridger points out, the phrase "theory-based semantics" can appear in various contexts without being about this, whatever it is. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2008 (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.