Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intentional web

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 of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intentional web

Is this notable? I'm not sure. Abstain. Neutrality^talk 06:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is a real term. It refers to tools (websites & applications) designed for users to gather information based on their intentions. Amanuelt 06:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. 400 google hits, most don't apply. Here's one from Oreillynet [1], though I'm not sure it applies. Amanuelt, do you have a link to the presentation about the site? [2] Also, intentionalweb.org is really sparse right now, with almost nothing in the blog or forum, is it intended to be a commercial site? --Interiot 07:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; yet another neologism that isn't in widespread use. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-10 08:31:01Z
• Delete as a minor neologism (per the O'Reilly developer blog etc.) which appears more or less completely unrelated to the article's current content. For the record I'd vote delete even if it were refactored - <500 Google hits does not indicate a subject worthy of coverage here. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is nonsense. The google test lists 400 hits but the majority of them reffer to something completely different from the article's issue. It seems that it is a simple pet project based on an attempt at a neologism. --Mecanismo 12:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Keep. The presentation I made will be posted by Monday 12th. The term came about from a section of cognitive psychology which studies intentionality.
  • Intentionality in psychology is sometimes referred to as 'thought without representation' eg. if I said 'it is raining' you can assume that I am referring to where I am, so you change what I said in your head to 'It is raining where he is' There are many cases in conversation where we don't explicitly state things but the meaning carries because of conventions or our knowledge.
  • The intentional web refers to information which are intents of the visitors that is not physically represented in information the web.
  • The intentional web initiative site (which is linked in the article) is meant to be a community site for developers to be able to work together to enhance user experience, working from the site user perspective instead of what is usual the content creator/publisher side. The site will house, aggregated blogs on intentional web topics, forums, and articles. Amanuelt 15:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment We chose this term because it will not be confused with other existing terms. I know it has a low hit count on google, that is a good thing for now. When microformats was announced and posted here there was very little in google until about a month or two went by. But thanks to wikipedia I was able to contact the people working on it right away. The term has so far received positive remarks at the presentation, and on IRC channels when discussed. Amanuelt 15:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not enough hits. Amanuelt, I appreicate your enthusiasm, but notability must come before the Wikipedia article, not after. Firebug 18:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly. Wikipedia's mission, as every encyclopedia's, is to list information on already notable subjects. An encylopedia's purpose isn't to make those subjects notable. Therefore, if your argument justifies anything then it is the deletion of the article, which is more than deserved. --Mecanismo 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete seems like original research at this point. Not notable. ++Lar 19:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I thank you all for your input and reactions. If you feel it is wiser to repost this once the term enters regular use, I will accept your decision as I am new to posting on the wikipedia. My intentions were to provide a place where people can look to see the proper definition of the term. Amanuelt 21:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest then, as others have, that you consider creating or enhancing a site for it elsewhere (presumably enhancing this site), to capture the information about it in more detail than could be done here (encyclopedic means a precis, not in depth exposition), and Google will find it. Over time if the term and concept catches on and is used in real life, people will be falling over themselves to create this article. But for now, it seems self promotional, something that Wikipedians tend to frown on. Also, it may be useful to disclose your affiliation when you argue for or against deletion... as the primary author of this idea/term some would expect some bias in favour, which you should make explicit so your words carry more weight (advance disclosure defuses revelation by others). Note also that the concept itself seems fascinating and seems to have a lot of potential, and if it can be reduced to practice, might be a very important advance. Wikipedia is not the place to publicise things, though. Hope that helps (all IMHO only of course)... ++Lar 22:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Since you're mainly looking for a definition... one fallback users may use, after trying Wikipedia, is Google's "define:" operator [3], so maybe it's possible to SEO that. --Interiot 00:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Original Research, Not notable and vanity. The term, as defined in the article, overlaps with my (day job) research area; and it's not one I've heard at all. It seems just a term for a simple application of Semantic Web principles. Also, I note that despite Amanuelt's claims, there doesn't appear to be any tools that actually use this term to describe themselves.
  • Thanks for you input...just curious, who are you? Amanuelt 01:08, 11 December 2005 (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.