- Aevol (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Consensus not reached. The admin (Black Kite(talk)) who deleted the page told me to post here after I commented about the consensus not being reached and gave him a new piece of information : new Aevol-related publication in Nature Reviews Microbiology (http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v10/n5/full/nrmicro2750.html). As I told him, if an article in the NATURE publishing group does not establish reliability and notability, what will? Parsons.eu (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. The answer to the question above is that independent coverage about Aevol is what would establish notability, not papers by the originators of Aevol mentioning that it was used in their research. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As mentionned in the former discussion but never reacted upon, the same would go for Avida, the only cited coverage being from the originators and coworkers. It would however be a great error to remove the Avida page since many e.g. students can be interested in this page... Parsons.eu (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not reacted to because it is not relevant. Please see What About article X?. Yoenit (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse On the procedural side I see three !votes for deletion, against two arguments for keeping the article, one of which was shamelessly canvassed. The keep arguments do not address the concern for deletion, so I endorse the closure. Looking at it from the human side I think the problem here is with the misconception that notability is inherited. That research done with this tool was published in Nature means the research is probably notable and should be included somewhere in Wikipedia, but it does not automatically establish that the tool used is notable. For that we need independent sources to provide in depth coverage of the tool, which do not seem to exist in this case. Yoenit (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the argument for deletion (that there is no significant coverage in sources which are independent of the subject) was not addressed. The Nature link given above doesn't actually mention Aevol at all. Possibly some of the work in the paper was done with Aevol, but the fact that Aevol is not even mentioned means this does not constitute coverage of Aevol. Hut 8.5 15:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The link above is to an abstract, not the full text of the paper, so Aevol probably is mentioned, although I haven't checked it personally because my library doesn't give me online access to editions of Nature Reviews Microbiology less than a year old, and I'm not prepared to make a special trip to the library or splash out $32. The point still remains that the paper is written by members of the same team that developed Aevol, so any coverage contained is not independent. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do have access to the full text, it doesn't mention Aevol. Hut 8.5 17:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused, I thought the reference was more direct... It does however point to some of the results of the model, e.g. "in silico studies showed that the indirect selection of a specific variability level can shape the genome structure at the levels of gene number, genome size and amount of non-coding DNA (ref 140)" Parsons.eu (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. While the close accurately reflected the discussion, I don't believe the discussion was adequate. A GScholar search shows a large number of hits, indicating that the software is used often enough in scientific research to be a plausible search term as well as presumptively notable, but there are also enough uses in other contexts, to make me wonder whether the term has a more generic usage, so that the software may not be the appropriate subject for the article oin the term itself. This look like it needs attention from editors with more relevant expertise than I claim. More discussion will be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "Aevol" gives indeed 174 hits on Google Scholar. However, the number of hits which are actually about this software is no more than 20-30. Most of the hits seem to be OCR errors from pre-1900 books and the others are unrelated abbreviations and parameters in a wide variety of other research fields and languages, all extremely obscure. Yoenit (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. I agree with Hullaballoo that the close was the only way to read the discussion; the flaw is the discussion itself. The deletion voters claim that Ph.D. dissertations don't contribute to notability and that academic journal articles written by individuals connected to the subject are likewise irrelevant. Both are greatly at variance with our norms here. A successful dissertation is produced by an expert and reviewed by other experts in the field. Moreover, our WP:SELFPUB policy is related to sources that are generally not considered generally reliable; as long as we're talking an established academic journal, that's not the case. We have a policy against subject-connected sources counting toward notability in order to discount sources such as manufacturers' websites; in contrast, we can assume that the journal publisher is not affiliated with the subject unless we find evidence to the contrary, and we have always encouraged published scholars to contribute their expertise. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that there was a flaw in the discussion and I don't know where you're getting that being the norm here is from. I've never seen that be the case in any policy or guideline. Likewise, I have never seen a book published by a major publisher be able to show notability for the author. I also don't see where on WP:SELFPUB it says that it only counts toward unreliable sources. There is "5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." however. SL93 (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You should take a look here : Self-publishing. As the first sentence in this page states, "Self-publishing is the publication of any book or other media by the author of the work, without the involvement of an established third-party publisher.", which is never true for peer-reviewed scientific publications. Cited references about Aevol are published in MIT Press, oxford journals, elsevier, ... Parsons.eu (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, "I have never seen a book published by a major publisher be able to show notability for the author." This is the same thing. If Wikipedia really goes by what Nyttend is saying, then a book published by a major publisher should be able to show notability for the author. Which it doesn't. SL93 (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe one doesn't... A few in different titles from different publishing groups certainly does.Parsons.eu (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But in AfD, it doesn't so journals should be no different. Both books from major publishers and articles in journals go through a long process with editors and fact checkers. It shouldn't show notability for one, but not the other. My point is - it was still originally from the originators of the software. Products or whatever cannot have notability shown by writings from the owner or owner. Just like major book publishers can't show notability for a person's products or the person. SL93 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NEWS : Today, two articles about Aevol were accepted for publication in the proceedings of the 13th Artificial Life Conference:
- Effects of public good properties on the evolution of cooperation (Dusan Misevic, Antoine Frénoy, David P. Parsons and François Taddei).
- The Paradoxical Effects of Allelic Recombination on Fitness (David P. Parsons, Carole Knibbe and Guillaume Beslon). Parsons.eu (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
