Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semantic Brand Score


 * 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. ✗ plicit  14:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semantic Brand Score

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Looks like academic spam to me: all sources that discuss the topic have a common author, then padded with a large number of sources that are relied upon synthetically to support claims in the article but do not actually discuss the subject of the article; I can find no evidence that the topic has received significant coverage in sources independent of the inventor of the idea. Article creator appears to be an single-purpose account whose contributions all focus on promoting the work of the same author. JBL (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence that notice of this has moved beyond the proposer, Colladon. I agree that most of the citations are not about the topic of the article. I warned the article submitter about this some time ago but I see rather than fixing the problems they elected to just move the draft back to article space. They've had plenty of time to fix it, so I assume no fix is possible. - MrOllie (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete (quite reluctantly) because it is an interesting twist on brand equity. But so far a "one man band". My guess: it will gather attention in time, and others will re-invent it, claim authorship anew, write books, as usual. But for now, no go. Ode+Joy (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * DO NOT Delete Deleting this page is, in my opinion, the expression of a biased view. Honestly, I don't care about the effort wasted in the creation of the pages I edited and you deleted. I see it as removing knowledge from Wikipedia, but ok. What I feel is wrong is extending the same reasoning to all pages, including this one. Deleting this specific page would mean ignoring several secondary sources that not only mention, but also describe the metric. Among these there are newspaper articles, TV interviews, podcasts, scientific papers, blog posts and master's thesis. A good amount of these is not related to the authors of the primary sources. I gave some examples of primary and secondary sources in the Talk page. Let me also add that this page has been online for almost 3 years, has been referenced by other websites and edited in its content by other Wikipedia users that probably found it useful. Somethingtoshare (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC) — Somethingtoshare (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I looked at your list. First I clicked on several links to find they'd been authored by Colladon, so they weren't independent. I did find an independent one I checked as a sample, 'Semantic knowledge network inference across a range of stakeholders and communities of practice'. It doesn't describe the Semantic Brand Score at all. It mentions the title of the paper in the references list, but the paper is only referenced as part of a list of recent papers. Please cut your list down to only those papers that are independent of Colladon and include subtantial content (more than a sentence or two). If we find enough sources I'll consider flipping my !vote, but I don't want to have to wade through a pile of trivial mentions. - MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I did find one spammy cryptocurrency paper using this by a second group of authors, 10.1007/978-3-030-66981-2_8, but that's not enough to convince me that this subject has become a significant topic of research by multiple groups yet. WP:TOOSOON. See also Articles for deletion/Distinctiveness centrality which appears to involve more academic spam from the same people. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Some Secondary Sources. Thanks (also for your patience and good advices in the past), I am slowly learning here. And thank you  for finding a source I was not aware of. I will list some secondary sources here, so the others can also easily look at examples:
 * 1) This paper uses the metric and describes it in detail. The metric is not only mentioned but calculated and used by the paper authors: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014829631930582X
 * 2) These newspaper articles (one of the major newspapers in Italy) report a use case of the metric: https://www.infodata.ilsole24ore.com/2019/05/14/marketing-della-poltica-della-lega-brand-vale-piu/ and https://www.infodata.ilsole24ore.com/2019/05/21/elezioni-europee-le-parole-che-i-giornali-associano-ai-partiti/
 * 3) This Linkedin blog post presents an analysis of German elections, carried out by some author using the metric: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/next-bundeskanzler-armin-laschet-ulf-jeffke/?trackingId=Qr0AC8SGRNWwvksbncScag%3D%3D
 * 4) This page presents a real use case of the metric for business (carried out in Russia): https://rb.ru/interview/aventica/
 * 5) These news articles (university press) describe the research about the metric (don't know if they count as secondary sources): https://www.bacheca.unipg.it/vita-accademica/2654-successo-per-il-semantic-brand-score-del-professor-andrea-fronzetti-colladon-misura-la-forza-di-un-marchio-si-puo-applicare-anche-alla-politica and http://old.ing.unipg.it/en/main-page/78-news/600-semantic-brand-score-sviluppato-da-andrea-fronzetti-colladon
 * 6) The cryptocurrency book chapter that uses and describes the metric, found by David Eppstein. I don't know if crappy or not, but still published in international conference proceedings by Springer: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-66981-2_8
 * 7) The Brand Mentions Encyclopeia: https://brandmentions.com/wiki/Brand_Score
 * 8) In addition, a lot of scientific papers refer to the metric, even if not fully describing it. Many of these do not include the author of the primary source. See for example: https://scholar.google.it/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22semantic+brand+score%22&btnG= and https://scholar.google.it/scholar?cites=11163848385607207233&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en
 * All these analyses and sources are independent from the paper author. I am also aware of at least two master's theses that use the metric (and were not supervised by the primary source). I just cannot find them online.Somethingtoshare (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Somethingtoshare: You need to accept that you are in quicksand now. The more you struggle, the chance of survival for the article diminishes. Everyone here (except yourself) can see your desperation, and interpret that as a conflict of interest. And you have done nothing else, so your single goal is obvious. Accept the inevitable. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * These are mostly unreliable sources or more trivial mentions. The Schlaile paper is of the standard we're looking for, but we would need more than one such source to keep this article. MrOllie (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Once we discard the unreliably-published sources, the promotional material, and the "references" that merely give background, we're left with a spammy cryptocurrency paper and the Schlaile et al. paper on "meme maps". That's pretty darn thin. Representing datasets by graphs and cooking up measures for them has been incredibly big for the past ~20 years; it's very easy to do, but much harder to say whether the outputs are meaningful. Without a much more substantial secondary literature that critically evaluates this measure, we can't write about it in an encyclopedic way. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My delete vote stands, but I should comment on your "much harder to say whether the outputs are meaningful" statement. This approach will, of course, produce at best a "half baked estimate" of "real brand equity" whatever that may be. But the other approaches typically produce "third baked estimates" if they are lucky. To give you context I recall that when Rupert Murdoch was buying US Media companies he used some Australian rules to interpret inflated brand equity as goodwill and borrowed huge sums from the banks down under. And of course you know who has consistently used sky high estimates of brand equity to borrow from a couple of specific banks. So brand equity is a nebulous idea that amounts to billions and billions. So this article will be deleted, but let us not kick the concept it presents. Ode+Joy (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2021 (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.