Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descriptive Ontology for Linguistic and Cognitive Engineering

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 redirect to Upper ontology#DOLCE. Preserving history in case someone has anything to copy over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptive Ontology for Linguistic and Cognitive Engineering (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)

This article is entirely sourced from primary material. The term does not seem to have any currency outside of its original proponents and their group, who seem to be the authors of all the cited sources. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect into the DOLCE section of upper ontology. No evidence the term is used outside the small group who apparently wrote the articles? Currently way too much detail, perhaps move the sources into the upper ontology article since that is pretty thin too. W Nowicki (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Upper ontology#DOLCE, where it is briefly discussed. A Gbooks search reveals that DOLCE has brief mentions in some ontology guides. A Comparison of Upper Ontologies discusses DOLCE in some depth, seems independent, and as an academic technical report, is semi-reliable. These sources aren't enough to reach notability threshold per WP:GNG, but they are enough sourcing to support a brief section on the upper ontology at Upper ontology#DOLCE. As this is a plausible search term, a redirect is warranted. I agree with W Nowicki that transferring some of the sources, or the tech report above, to the target article would strengthe the section, but a full merge would expand the section to one of undue weight. Hence, redirect now and selectively merge as desired seems best. --Mark viking (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2016 (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.