Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aevol

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 delete. The consensus is that there is insufficient evidence of the notability of the package, and that the coverage provided is either not reliable or independent enough PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 April 20.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Aevol

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no independent coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what it is you haven't found. There are 8 references to pear-reviewed scientific journals, international conferences or PhD manuscripts plus an external link to the (newly created) website... Could you please let me know what is needed to ensure that the Aevol entry in wikipedia is not deleted? Best regard.Parsons.eu (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PhD theses don't establish notability, but articles in scientific journals generally do. I'm not clear what the proposer's problem is --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm doubting the content about this software in the scientific journals. With something technical, it is normally possible to find online sources as well. It would be great if Parsons.eu could say how the software is discussed in each source. SL93 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotion of a little noted software package. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. All of the peer-reviewed sources are from the originators of this model. We need evidence that independent sources have taken note of it before we can have an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Online sources are available at http://www.aevol.fr/download/. An SVN repository (including log entries) is available on https://gforge.liris.cnrs.fr/projects/aevol/. In addition to the original authors and their direct collaborators, Aevol has been used for over 2 years by researchers from the INSERM in Paris. I will let them know about this discussion so that they can give their input. Regarding the feedback we get from reviewers, I'm not sure if they can be published. Besides, they are, by nature, anonymous.Parsons.eu (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the INSERM researchers in Paris using the model, together with a PhD student and 3-4 different interns we've had over the past 2 years. I don't see a problem here. The model has been around for several years, generated a number of publications that have been cited by others. Within the theoretical/evolutionary biology, artificial life community, that type of continued successful use is rare, as many models are one-shot things. Additionally, "model" may be misleading since evokes an image of a system of differential equations. Aevol is similar to Tierra or Avida systems, all of which involve tens of thousands of lines of code which, in Aevol case, have been coded over a number of years by at least half a dozen different researchers. For comparison, you could also take a look at the wiki article for Avida, a similar software platform for study of evolution. Admittedly, Avida has been around for more over 10 years, but due to steep learning/adoption curve, to this day, 90% of the publication involves 2-3 original project founders and their direct collaborators. Going back to e.g. 2005, Avida had several Nature and Science publications, yet all were by the same team. The point is, the requirement of "independent sources" seems misplaced and inappropriate here. Publication in peer-reviewd journals imply that other have taken note. Again, I see no problem with the article. dule-123 11:35, 16 April 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, Sandstein 06:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was closed as "delete", but is relisted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 20. That review discussion may contain additional sources that are helpful for this deletion discussion. Sandstein 06:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article was also listed at the copyright problems board by a {{copypaste}} tag. Suspect content has been blanked as I seek verification of license from the contributor. The copyright issue should be separate from other considerations as it is likely resolvable and as the article predates the introduction of this content. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright issue resolved. I would like to thank Moonriddengirl for his (her?) reactivity. Parsons.eu (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment During the discussions in the deletion review, I mentionned a newly published paper in Nature Reviews Microbiology http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v10/n5/abs/nrmicro2750.html in which appear two references to Aevol papers. I also mentionned that two papers had been accepted for ALife13 : "The Paradoxical Effects of Allelic Recombination on Fitness" (D. P. Parsons, C. Knibbe and G. Beslon) and "Effects of public good properties on the evolution of cooperation" (D. Misevic, A. Frénoy, D. P. Parsons and F. Taddei). There were in fact three, the third being "Robustness and evolvability of cooperation" (A. Frenoy, F. Taddei, D. Misevic). Note that the latter paper is completely independent of any of the original authors of the model, which should resolve the lack of independent coverage that originated this discussion. Finally, I would like to mention that researchers from the York Centre for Complex Systems Analysis have recently shown interest for using Aevol in their research. Parsons.eu (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as I mentioned in the deletion review that Nature paper does not mention Aevol anywhere. Citing papers which do mention Aevol does not constitute coverage of Aevol and so cannot demonstrate notability. Similarly the fact that a certain institution has "shown interest" in using the model does not constitute coverage of Aevol. Since these other papers have not been published they cannot be used as sources and it is not possible to assess what level of coverage they devote to Aevol. Hut 8.5 22:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to clarify a point relating to the Nature Reviews Microbiology paper. It does not cite papers "which do mention Aevol". It cites two papers which use Aevol to generate data and test scientific hypothesis. Aevol is central to both of the papers cited. dule-123 14:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Nature review does not mention Aevol, therefore it does not constitute coverage of Aevol - citing papers which do use Aevol does not constitute coverage of Aevol. Hut 8.5 18:42, 2 May 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.