Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 14: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[CLEF/Cross Language Evaluation Forum]]: closing (del. endorsed) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
||
--> |
--> |
||
====[[CLEF/Cross Language Evaluation Forum]]==== |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross Language Evaluation Forum]] |
|||
The Entry on CLEF/Cross Language Evaluation Forum has been deleted although quite a few comments |
|||
in the deletion process claimed that it was a markable event. |
|||
To justify these claims: |
|||
* CLEF is currently the only initiative that carries out benchmarking events for multi-lingual/cross language information retrieval. |
|||
* it is a well known fact that benchmarking in research is a way to enforce new techniques and that leads to an overall improvment over time |
|||
* CLEF has a 7 year long history and is growing larger from year to year |
|||
* CLEF is also hosting ImageCLEF, currently the only evaluation on (content-based) image retrieval that has actually carried out an evaluation |
|||
Therefore, |
|||
* CLEF is a remarkable effort in research in a more-and-more globalizing world |
|||
* TREC (text retrieval conference) has tight bounds to CLEF (CLEF was forked out of CLEF as it grew too large to be a subtrack of TREC) |
|||
* the deletion of CLEF should be reversed and the page should be readded. |
|||
--[[User:Tdeselaers|Tdeselaers]] 15:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''' Deletion closer stated "The result was '''Delete'''. No evidence has been provided to counter the lack of notability claims made by those advocating deletion. If it is indeed notable the article can be recreated with appropriate references." Sourcing when challenged is required under our core policies, [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]]. Nothing prevents the recreation of a sourced article, with the basis for importance sourced to [[WP:INDY|independent sources]]. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 12:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''' A rare case where the closing admin cares about evidence rather than assertions. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 18:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:18, 19 October 2006
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)