Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FESOM


 * 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 keep. Keep / no consensus. No delete !votes after over a month at AFD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

FESOM

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources: all the sources cited are by the creators of FESOM. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep : According to the WP:NEXIST independent sources should not be necessarily cited on the page itself. It is natural that in the description of the model the cited sources are from the model developers.(Koldunovn (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC))
 * In answer to your first sentence: Absolutely, and if you can provide suitable sources then I will withdraw my nomination, but I haven't been able to find any. On the subject of just saying "there must be sources somewhere" without providing them in a deletion discussion, see Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; however, you haven't even said that there are, or must be, suitable sources that are not cited in the article, you have merely pointed to a guideline which says that if there are suitable sources that are not cited in the article then that is OK.
 * In answer to your second sentence: Wikipedia's notability guidelines require substantial coverage in sources independent of the subject. Whether it is "natural" or not, the existence of writing about a subject by the creators of that subject is no evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if it sounded as if don't want to address the the issue, I was just trying to constructively answer the direct concern (as I understood it, of course). To the question of the the independent sources. Here is the list with several recent scientific publications where FESOM is used and authors of FESOM are not the first authors or not involved at all. Please note, that in geosciences the largest contribution (sometimes the only) usually comes from the first author, it might be different in other scientific fields.


 * Hellmer, H. H., Kauker, F., Timmermann, R., Determann, J., and Rae, J.: Twenty-first-century warming of a large Antarctic ice- shelf cavity by a redirected coastal current, Nature, 485, 225–228, 2012.


 * Nakayama, Y., Timmermann, R., Schröder, M., and Hellmer, H. H.: On the difficulty of modeling Circumpolar Deep Water intrusions onto the Amundsen Sea continental shelf, Ocean Modell., 84, 26–34, 2014.


 * Haid, V., Timmermann, R., Ebner, L., and Heinemann, G.: Atmospheric forcing of coastal polynyas in the south-western Weddell Sea, Antarctic Science, 27, 388–402, 2015.


 * Ionita, M., Scholz, P. , Lohmann, G. , Dima, M. and Prange, M. (2016) Linkages between atmospheric blocking, sea ice export through Fram Strait and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, Nature Scientific Reports, 6 (32881). doi:10.1038/srep32881


 * Scholz, P., Kieke, D. , Lohmann, G. , Ionita, M. and Rhein, M. (2014) Evaluation of Labrador Sea water formation in a global finite-element sea-ice ocean model setup based on a comparison with observational data, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans doi:10.1002/2013JC009232


 * Terwisscha van Scheltinga, A., P. G. Myers, and J. D. Pietrzak (2010), A finite element sea ice model of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Ocean Dyn., 60(6), 1539–1558, doi:10.1007/s10236-010-0356-5.


 * To add to that as a supporting evidence here is a list of notable scientific programs and projects where use of the FESOM is explicitly mentioned (proved by the external link at the end of the line):
 * * CMIP phase 6 (this is the basis for the IPCC reports) []
 * * WCRP | High Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP) (as AWI-CM)[]
 * * CLIVAR | Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments - Phase II (CORE II) For evidence of participation see the list of models (at the same page). At the same page there is a list of scientific publications with only one that have leading author from the FESOM development team (Q. Wang). One can see that in this publications the rest of the authors go alphabetically, which in practice usually means they are just credited for providing the data.
 * * Horizon 2020 program Primavera. Here only some presentation from the official website as a prove.
 * Sorry for ugly formatting. Please let me know if this is enough. (Koldunovn (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC))


 * * Wikipedia's notability guidelines are, in my opinion, rather a mess of bits and pieces, and I think they could benefit from being substantially cleaned up and rationalised. However, the central point is that a topic is considered notable if it has received substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. "Substantial" means that brief mentions are not enough; "independent" means (amongst other things) that one does not confer notability on one's own work by writing about it; "reliable" does not seem to me to be relevant in this case, as I see no reason to doubt that all of the sources are reliable. You are perfectly free to propose changing the notability guidelines for scientific methods, so that any method which can be shown to have been used by quite a number of people is considered notable, but at present that is not so. The sources you link to merely indicate that writers of some papers mention very briefly that they have used FESOM: they do not give us any information about FESOM itself. In one case, the full and complete text of the mention of FESOM is "We have successfully run FESOM (Finite Element Sea ice Ocean  Model),  which  was  developed  at  AWI." In another one, FESOM is merely included in a long list of acknowledgements. In the other, FESOM is listed in a table, and in a list headed "Frontiers integrations", in which the full text of the list entry for  FESOM is "Unstructured mesh FESOM ocean/sea-ice coupled to ECHAM6". None of this is substantial coverage. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I can not agree that the notability guidelines can be applied, even in the present state, similarly to the articles about pop stars and about scientific methods. There should be some discretion in interpretation of the basic principles ("substantial coverage", "independent" and "reliable"), which seem reasonable enough, depending on the field.


 * The story of the scientific method/software is usually similar. There is at first an in depth description of the method/software by the authors in the manual (worst case) or peer reviewed scientific journal (better case). If the method/software is accepted by the community people start to use it, but there is no point of repeating the description, you just reference the original publication. The using usually imply that people spend days or sometimes years working with the tool, but in the resulting publication it would be only briefly mentioned and the reference to the original work will be given. So, behind the phrase "We have successfully run FESOM (Finite Element Sea ice Ocean Model), which was developed at AWI" there is much more work and though than behind any, say, review of mobile app or computer game that can be done in half an hour.


 * What I am trying to say is that in my opinion the "substantial coverage" in case of the scientific method/software should be interpreted differently compared to pokemon description. And this is could be done even with the present state of the notability guidelines, just by applying them less formally, taking in to consideration differences between the fields of human activity. Otherwise most of the articles listed here or even more general here would not have a chance to exist. I don't think it would make Wikipedia a better place. Koldunovn (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment,, has FESOM been independently reviewed/criticised?, this would contribute to notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * * Thank you for taking part in this discussion and for your suggestion, . Yes FESOM has been reviewed. I guess the first thing to mention is that two publications out of three presently mentioned in the article are published in the Geoscientific Model Development, which is not only peer reviewed, but also have the whole review process available to the public (keeping reviewers anonymous if they want). Here is the discussion for the Q. Wang et al., 2014 paper and here is for Danilov et al., 2015. As one can see there is a fair amount of criticism in the initial reviews, especially for the Q. Wang's paper, but the fact that papers were finally published mean that the criticism were addressed and reviewers and the editor are in general happy with the author's answer to the review. The third mentioned paper (Sidorenko et al., 2014) is published in the Climate Dynamics and went through the same peer review process, but in the closed mode (as majority of the scientific journals do).
 * One more evidence of the independent review/criticism are the papers resulted from the Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments - Phase II (CORE II) project. During this project ocean models were run with the same boundary conditions and then several aspects of the model performance compared to each other. There is quite a good number of papers on the project website and each of them have multiple figures of different ocean model metrics with direct comparison of models against each other. At most of this figures the FESOM results are present, so there is a way to directly compare its performance to other ocean models. All those papers are not just blog posts, but publications in a peer reviewed journal (Ocean modelling), which mean they all went through the above described peer review process.
 * And last but not the least all papers that I have mentioned on this AfD page went through the peer review. Moreover most of the things that can be found by querying Google Scholar for FESOM went through the peer review (excluding conference abstracts, reports and similar things). So my more general point is that even if the paper is written by the authors of the model/method but published in the respectful scientific journal it is peer reviewed, so at leas two independent professionals in the field have agreed that methods used in the paper and the results are fine.(Koldunovn (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC))

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Since it is a some kind of a computer simulation software/model, with scientific articles written about it, I guess notability requirements are just barely fulfilled. Ceosad (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2016 (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.