Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FieldTrip


 * 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 No consensus. The comments below and the spread of !votes so far indicate that we are dealing with a situation where there is sufficient evidence that the subject is notable and merits inclusion, but the sources we have ready access to are not helping. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

FieldTrip

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable software in development. PROD contested Mdann52 (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is intended to be a clean description of a MATLAB toolbox for advanced analysis of EEG/MEG/electrophysiological data in general. This wikipedia entry should describe the current state and the history of the toolkit, and where it is developed. It is in several ways comparable to e.g. EEGLAB, and in some ways comparable to SPM. We collaborate and share code with both. FieldTrip is an important toolbox for many people doing data-analysis in neuroscience, especially, but not exclusively, in cognitive neuroscience. As such, I hope the article does not warrant a delete. In it's current state it does not suffice, but I hoped a small entry would be okay to start with. In hindsight, I should have made a full version before submitting. This will take some more time, at least more than 2 weeks. Roemervandermeij (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 15:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral Even though I was the article's original PRODder, I am going to !vote neutral. The reason for this is that the article describing this software has already been cited over 100 times (Web of Science; over 200 times in the less precise Google Scholar), despite having been published very recently (2011). If the article creators could provide us with an independent (reliable) source discussing or reviewing this toolbox, I would change for a "keep". --Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This seems like a marginal case. Sources I found:
 * Independent paper that uses FieldTrip to compare against author's software. Marginally in depth about FieldTrip, but FieldTrip wasn't the main topic.
 * Review article on Matlab based tools for brain computer interaction. A team of authors of different packages, Robert Oostenveld is one of them. So sort of independent, but not unambiguously so.
 * Review article on software tools for MEG As with the previous source, a review by multiple authors, including Robert Oostenveld.
 * FieldTrip is in NeuroLex, a community-curated directory of neuroscience information. Probably independent, but not reliable by WP standards
 * There was a 2.5 day workshop on FieldTrip in 2011
 * Except for the first reference, none of these are both fully independent and reliable. But obscure software packages don't get invited to review papers or have workshops held for them, and Randykitty's citation counts hold weight, too. Given the article's potential, I would lean toward keep, but this remains a comment on sources found for now. --Mark viking (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, weakly. The text seems neutral and factual, even if jargony; that's a big plus.  It seems to be a small, open source academic project about important sounding stuff.  Yes, people may want to know about this a hundred years from now. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Several workshops have been given at various location in the world - Google might not be the best source for finding them and not all were announced online. In the following I'm gonna list some more links and facts which might help to make a decision:


 * A FieldTrip workshop was given in St. Louis in light of the Human Connectome Project of which FieldTrip is part of and receives funding from (In line with Mark viking's argument, an obscure software package would hardly receive funding from the National Institutes of Health)
 * FieldTrip also receives funding by Braingain - a project with a budget of 24.000.000Euro
 * One of the many upcoming workshops - this one is at the university of Tübingen
 * In the past there have been several toolkits at the Donders Institute the last in 2012. The toolkits are always well visited with people coming from renowned universities and institutes (this is just an arbitrary example, but it strengthens the importance of the toolbox for electrophysiological data analysis in the neuroscience community)
 * The FieldTrip Wiki itself lists more workshops - definitely not an independent list, but the most complete summary of external workshops that have been and will be given (though incomplete by itself).
 * EEGLAB and FieldTrip have, as already mentioned, a collaboration going, see also the EEGLAB homepage mentioning this
 * An extensive list of papers citing FieldTrip. The paper that Randykitty already mentioned was just published in 2011 - before 2011 it was common to refer to FieldTrip as an URL. That is why this list is probably also incomplete and it is hardly possible to find all papers citing FieldTrip before 2011/2012. -- Horschig (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is harmless and sourcing is adequate. Looie496 (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Not all the arguments given above by Horschig are pertinent (amount of funding, for example, or the workshops being given) and I do think that, in fact, this is very close (probably just below) our notability bar. However, as Looie496 says, the article is sourced and it is non-promotional. And given the huge amount of citations to their article after just 2 years, I don't think we need a crystal ball to see that this will be notable shortly. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2013 (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.