Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transport Chemical Aerosol Model


 * 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 merge to Chemical transport model.  Sandstein  08:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Transport Chemical Aerosol Model

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I was going to tag this as G11, but it was restored following a contested PROD (courtesy, restoring editor, JohnCD is unfortunately deceased) so we're here. I am unable to find sourcing to indicate notability, nor can I identify a viable ATD merger target. Star  Mississippi  21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC) --
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. First page of hits on Google Scholar are all from "C. Carnevale" who also appears to be the primary author of the page.  If kept, needs to be tagged for obvious COI issues. PianoDan (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete changed - Very niche, non-notable. Will need to remove reference from TCAM dab.  Chumpih  t 08:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge - So it's a legit term, and while niche and uncommon the info could go onto Chemical transport model.  Thanks  et al.  The apparent reference from the article author to their paper still is only just below the threshold of self-promotion.  I still don't see sufficient notability outside the field to warrant its own article.
 * Keep. Merge into Chemical transport model if you like. Executive summary: it's not spam, and course complicated scientific material is going to be contributed by professors who are highly involved with the subject. And that's good not bad. And yes it's obscure, but it's part of a larger (and important) scientific field (atmospheric modeling), and this material expands our coverage on that. Which is also good not bad. Detailed arguments follow.
 * I think you all are looking at this too narrowly. Yes the particular term "Transport Chemical Aerosol Model" is highly obscure. But it's apparently a legit part of Chemical transport model which has an article and is legit scientific field, obscure but important: tools for modeling the atmosphere, which is involved with the study of climate change to a degree, which is a big deal. There's also the page template Atmospheric, Oceanographic and Climate Models which is big and which this article fits into maybe.


 * The whole larger field is really complicated or at least our material is (and could maybe use some dumbing down, IDK). But it's serious science, and I think we tend to give more leeway to serious science then rock bands and comic books. I don't know if we should, but I think we do, and that's at least reasonable, and so it would follow common practice to give this subject somewhat of a break. I mean we have thousands of articles on extinct fungi species and all.


 * So, the article Chemical transport model has many different models listed, but all but one are just bare mentions, but with links to external pages. Since those links exist, it may be that the article Chemical transport model should and eventually will be expanded to give a few sentences about each. Well right here we have that for this term of art, already written.


 * And one of the listed models wikilinks to an article, MOZART (model), which is comparable to this one I guess. That article, like this one, is short, and you could merge both into Chemical transport model I suppose. I don't care, as long as the material is kept somewhere and there's a redirect.


 * As noted, there are a number of scientific papers using the term and yes all but one have Claudio Carnevale as the top name -- but there are like various other names attached (as is common; no way to know if they are genuine contributors or just friends, but still). And yes Claudio Carnevale also wrote this article it looks like, but I mean it is part of an acadamecian's job to disseminate their findings to the general public. It's generally encouraged in academia. And I mean we want that. We want scholars to contribute! If the rubric is "well you're one of the few experts the world on this subject, so you can't donate an article about it cos you're too involved" we're going to be losing some science, here.


 * (And FWIW Carnevale is not tenured yet altho he is a doctor, and while the University of Brescia is legit and not small I don't know if it's top-level or not. Still, it says here that Carneval's written 128 articles and has 1,528 citations. I don't know if that's a lot or not, but he's not a squeegee guy at any rate.)


 * And I mean its not like Carnevale put his name in the article "Invented by Claudio Carnevale" or like that. He name does not appear in the article. It appears in the ref, along with two other names. Doesn't sound like spam to me. At any rate, its science, its climate change science, and Assistant Professor Carnevale went to the trouble of gifting us the article. Let's not throw that away.


 * EDIT: Oh and here are two books and three proceedings using the term "Transport Chemical Aerosol Model". This one at least is independent of Dr Carnevale and has a paragraph. 02:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipe-tan do not.png
 * And for goodness' sake User:RHaworth and User:Star Mississippi, to tag this for speedy as G11 (spam), no no that is not what WP:CSD is for. Articles like this also not for WP:PROD. PROD. When you tag an article for PROD or particularly CSD (it wasn't but you considered it I guess) and the material gets kept or at any rate probably should be kept (which applies to this article), that's a hint that you're being a little overenthusiastic maybe

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I dunno... all this worries me. I pick like ten random AfD threads a year, a fraction of a fraction of a percent. I happened here, but what if I hadn't. I've been assured that the closers do take the hour or so it takes to research consider each AfD in a bit more detail as I have here, so I shouldn't worry. I do anyway. I think it's partly on veteran editors to consider that, as the project moves forward thru time, of course we are going to have more and more material, and every effort should be made to find reasons to keep good (or anyway OK) material and not get them into the meatgrinder, here. Herostratus (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We can agree to disagree, but when the bulk of the article is "Main features // Information about TCAM features, numerical schemes and applications can be found at the EEA Model Documentation System (MDS) website." it's fairly clear that the goal is promotion. I personally have no issue with a merge should that be what consensus is. NB: I'm pretty sure closers don't spend an hour considering AfDs, nor is that our remit when closing. [I speak in the general sense, I would of course not close an AfD I started] Star   Mississippi  01:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Yes, alright. I've long been strongly opposed to commercial editing, and of course COI editing is always problematic, but as I said I think that professors writing in their area of academic expertise is a very small problem (probably even a positive good) compared to the real problems of like paid PR flacks, and people making articles about their unnotable selves or editing them to glorify themselves. So for my part the COI angle means very little in this case and I'd urge you and others to consider my point.


 * However, there is an important argument against the material, which I didn't bring up, and that is this: we know that "Transport Chemical Aerosol Model" is term coined and mostly used by Dr Carnevale and his colleagues and/or grad students at Brescia U. The question is has this term spread to become a legit term of art in that field? Is it "mostly" used or "almost only used" in Brescia? It may well be the former, so let's find out...


 * So having written that, let's see.. here Google Books shows a number of books where the term or TCAM is used. I can't and/or haven't bothered to see if it's more than a mere mention, but even a mention indicates its a real term outside Brescia. This book] has a paragraph describing TCAM... it doesn't mention Dr Carnevale so we could switch the ref to that. To my mind this is sufficient. It might well not be sufficient for determining if, say, a Canadian minor league curling team is notable or not. But if we're going to continue to expand and deepen our coverage of science -- and if not, what are we supposed to be doing here? -- we're going to have to have to loosen up some on what is "notable" in science. Otherwise we skew a lot more toward popular culture: TCAM has less coverage than what color dress Oliva Rodrigo wore to the Grammies, and all.


 * At any rate, it seems very likely that TCAM would rate a mention in the list given in Chemical transport model. That being so, why not also keep the other material we have here since we already have it? Either thru having the TCAM mention wikilink to this article (my preference) or merging this article into that.


 * Also, "delete" and "merge" are about opposite, since merge means to keep the material in, technically, a different location, so how do you mean "I personally have no issue with a merge"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)


 * Hmmm, the one ref that the article has has a big honken "purchase for $41.95" to actually read the paper, so I mean you've got a good point there. Maybe it is sus. I took it out and rewrote what there is of the article, so I guess it's more OK now. Herostratus (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge per academic references found by Herostratus above. In either case, the line "Information about TCAM features, numerical schemes and applications can be found at the EEA Model Documentation System (MDS) website." should be replaced with a summary of what can be found at said website. I understand why the author creator might have written it this way, and I believe it is in good faith, but it's not how wikipedia works-- we don't just say "go read about it here", we say "this is what it is, and here's a reference that backs us up". Regardless, a good faith mistake in how to present information is not grounds for deletion, so keep or merge. Fieari (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I took that out and basically rewrote the article (short article so not a big job) and also used a ref which is not connected to the guy who invented the thing and started the article. The article could stand to be expanded a bit. (And FWIW also started the article off in plain English which I wish our scientific article writers would take the time to make at least the first sentence or so describe the entity in terms that the average intelligent reader can understand at least what field it is in. After that you can an get into the specialist vocabulary.) Herostratus (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. Re: my comment on merger, more to mean that a merger consensus could make sense as well as a deletion one if folks believe this should/could be covered. Very few articles are "scorched earth, get rid of it" and this one certainly isn't. Agree to disagree on the rest, since we're both making valid points but just want to wholly endorse And FWIW also started the article off in plain English which I wish our scientific article writers would take the time to make at least the first sentence or so describe the entity in terms that the average intelligent reader can understand. While some are specialized subject matters, and Simple exists for a different reason, our science articles on the whole could be a lot more accessible to the lay reader. Star   Mississippi  02:45, 20 January 2022 (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.