Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elicited Personal Information Retrieval


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 03:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Elicited Personal Information Retrieval

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of established notability. I checked all the references in this article for citation counts in GScholar (which tends to overestimate them compared to, say, CiteSeer) and except for Teevan et al., which is not about the main topic at all, only two have received more than a handful of citations. The only one actually mentioning "Elicited Personal Information Retrieval" is the paper "Shared Files – The Retrieval Perspective", which is a pre-print of a paper that has apparently not yet been published (the PDF says it has been accepted by JASIST, but I couldn't find it there). It is also the only GScholar hit for "Elicited Personal Information Retrieval". This in turn cites some earlier papers by the same authors as describing EPIR research, but only one of those has received more than 20 citations.

For reference, in the field of HCR, 20 citations is not a lot: see Whittaker's profile, or even Bergman's for that matter.

MS Academic Search doesn't turn up any hits for "Elicited Personal Information Retrieval". Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 08:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Close enough to original research. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough reviewing. Note however that the papers which used the EPIR research method are fairly new, and it takes time for papers to be cited. I think that it would be more appropriate to judge these papers by the impact factor of the journals that accepted them. Three of these papers were accepted to JASIST which has the highest impact factor (2.005) of all information behavior journals, two to PUC with a lower but still relatively high impact factor of 1.133, and one to the most important HCI conference called CHI with a typical acceptance rate of ~20%. Note also that the EPIR research method enabled 6 different publications in the short time that it is used. There is also an earlier paper which used EPIR called 'Easy on that trigger dad: a study of long term family photo retrieval' with 56 citations according to Google Scholar, which I would like to add to the entry. The reason that MS Academic Search doesn't turn up any hits for "Elicited Personal Information Retrieval" is that all these papers but ref 1 (which is accepted to JASIST but not published yet) did not use this term, although you can clearly see in their Method section that they had used it. If not deleted, I intend to link the 'Personal Information Management' Wikipedia entry to this one in order to enable other PIM scientists use this method. I think that even if just one young student would read this entry and used EPIR in his/her Ph.D. study, than we did our bit. For your discretion, ebeloo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebeloo (talk • contribs) 14:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Something being too new to be notable means it's too soon to write an article about it. As for the impact factor vs. citation count, the latter is our habit and fits well into the "too soon" policy. (This is an argument from precedent, because there is, AFAIK, no inclusion policy regarding scientific topics.)
 * Instead of deleting, we can also move it to your namespace so it can be moved back to mainspace later or merge the content into another article, e.g. Steve Whittaker. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 14:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔  00:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete as failed to establish notability. In five years maybe the topic will have established notability and a new article may be submitted. --Bejnar (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.