Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcoSim
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- EcoSim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
At the moment the "sources" are :
- Gras, Robin; Devaurs D., Wozniak A., Aspinall A. (2009). "An individual-based evolving predator-prey ecosystem simulation using a Fuzzy Cognitive Map model of behavior". Artificial Life 15 (4): 423-463. DOI:10.1162/artl.2009.Gras.012.
- Nathalie, Osbore (November 2, 2011). "Nature by numbers: Simulated ecosystems provide answers to biological questions". International Science Grid this Week.
- Mallet, J. (1995). "A species definition for the modern synthesis". Trends in ecology and evolution 10: 294-299.
- Scott, Ryan; Gras R. (2012). "Comparing Distance-Based Phylogenetic Tree Construction Methods Using An Individual-Based Ecosystem Simulation, EcoSim". he Thirteenth International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems (Artificial Life 13): 105-110.
- Stephen, Fields (August 2, 2011). "New resources speed up ecosystem evolution simulations for computer scientist".
- Devaurs, D.; Gras R. (2010). "Species abundance patterns in an ecosystem simulation studied through Fisher’s logseries". Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 18: 100-123.
- Golestani, A.; Gras R. (2010). "Regularity analysis of an individual-based ecosystem simulation". Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 20: 043120.
- Mashayekhi, M.; Gras R. (2012). "Investigating the Effect of Spatial Distribution and Spatiotemporal Information on Speciation using Individual-Based Ecosystem Simulation". Journal of Computing 2: 98-103.
- Golestani, A.; Gras R., Cristescu M. (August 2012). "Speciation with gene flow in a heterogeneous virtual world: can physical obstacles accelerate speciation?". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279 (1740): 3055-3064.
Sources #1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 aren't independant as they're all written or co-written by Robin Gras. Source #3 dates back to 1995 and can't therefore be used as EcoSim didn't exist at that time. Source #5 comes from Gras' own university and praises Gras' works but isn't centered on EcoSim itself. Source 2 only rephrases what's already said on Gras' & EcoSim's personal page and doesn't analyses anything. I'd therefore say that : 1° notability is still to be proven ; 2° there's no sufficient material to write a neutral article. At the moment, it appears to be an original research. It seems like it's a bit to soon for an article on EcoSim on Wikipedia. Koui² (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources contain high impact factor journals and have therefore gone through an in deep independent peer review process that evaluates the interest, significance and quality of the works presented. These references cover all the material presented in the Wikipedia article, therefore nothing in this material is original research. However, I have added two other references that are review papers on the domain that talk about EcoSim. It should be notice also that most of the others artificial life tool pages presented in Wikipedia contain much fewer or no references at all and they do not seem to have been considered as original researches or having a lack of notability. --Robingras —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The additional two sources (first one added being Mashayekhi, M.; Gras R. (2012). "Investigating the Effect of Spatial Distribution and Spatiotemporal Information on Speciation using Individual-Based Ecosystem Simulation". Journal of Computing 2: 98-103 and the other one being Golestani, A.; Gras R., Cristescu M. (August 2012). "Speciation with gene flow in a heterogeneous virtual world: can physical obstacles accelerate speciation?". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279 (1740): 3055-3064) are also primary sources, as they've been written by EcoSim's creator himself. --Koui² (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]- This is not the two new sources. The two new sources are: "An, Li (2011). Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: Review of agent-based models. Ecological Modelling 229: 25-36." and "McLane, Adam J.; Christina Semeniukb, Gregory J. McDermida, Danielle J. Marceau (2011). The role of agent-based models in wildlife ecology and management. Ecological Modelling 222: 1544–1556.". None of these papers has been written by someone working in the EcoSim project. Moreover, if you look at to the the Wikipedia policy about Primary Sources, it says: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I would like to know where is the misuse in the EcoSim page as nowhere there is interpretation of the sources. I would like also to know why it should have a difference in the way the EcoSim is treated compared to the other Artificial Life tools pages. --Robingras
- Oops, sorry for not taking right new sources into account. So, regarding An, Li (2011) : this isn't a centered source. Concerning McLane et al. (2011), I couldn't access the whole article, but the abstract leads me to the conclusion that it may not be centered either. --Koui² (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I strictly followed the definition given for the Secondary Sources in Wikipedia: "For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research." These two papers are review papers in the field. However could you please also take into account my other comments and answer them. I think I have given all that is recommended by the Wikipedia rules and much more than what is given for other articles. It should be nice also to have the opinion of several other people on the subject. --Robingras —Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, sorry for not taking right new sources into account. So, regarding An, Li (2011) : this isn't a centered source. Concerning McLane et al. (2011), I couldn't access the whole article, but the abstract leads me to the conclusion that it may not be centered either. --Koui² (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the two new sources. The two new sources are: "An, Li (2011). Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: Review of agent-based models. Ecological Modelling 229: 25-36." and "McLane, Adam J.; Christina Semeniukb, Gregory J. McDermida, Danielle J. Marceau (2011). The role of agent-based models in wildlife ecology and management. Ecological Modelling 222: 1544–1556.". None of these papers has been written by someone working in the EcoSim project. Moreover, if you look at to the the Wikipedia policy about Primary Sources, it says: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I would like to know where is the misuse in the EcoSim page as nowhere there is interpretation of the sources. I would like also to know why it should have a difference in the way the EcoSim is treated compared to the other Artificial Life tools pages. --Robingras
- These sources contain high impact factor journals and have therefore gone through an in deep independent peer review process that evaluates the interest, significance and quality of the works presented. These references cover all the material presented in the Wikipedia article, therefore nothing in this material is original research. However, I have added two other references that are review papers on the domain that talk about EcoSim. It should be notice also that most of the others artificial life tool pages presented in Wikipedia contain much fewer or no references at all and they do not seem to have been considered as original researches or having a lack of notability. --Robingras —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep references meet requirements for establishing notability. They may not be adequate to source a balanced article. We fix unbalanced articles, we don't delete them. --Kvng (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.