Talk:Generalized Environmental Modeling System for Surfacewaters

Problems with the article

I'll just go down the list based on the issues I raised at the top of the article:

• Notability: There's nothing which indicates this topic meets WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT.
• Inline citations: Pretty simple, as there are none. There is one reference helpfully added by James500, but it's unclear what it is supporting as it's not available online.
• Links to other articles: There is one link, to database. Also, on a related note, very few articles link to this one. It's practically an orphan (except for a couple lists which link to it).
• No lead section: There is only one section in this article. It needs to be formatted into a regular article, with a lead (summarizing the rest of the article), and clearly-defined subsections which help the reader to better understand the topic.
• Reads like an advert: The majority of the text reads like it came from the GEMSS marketing department. There are weasel words all throughout the article, and it is definitely not written in a neutral manner.

Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Notability depends on the existence of sources, not their immediate citation. As you haven't done WP:BEFORE, you are not in a position to make claims about notability. Frankly, the source already in the article proves the topics notability, but there are plenty of other sources that can be found with Google. And if that wasn't enough, there is actually a very lengthy bibliography of many suitable sources containing significant coverage here. I have checked the listed publications and they do exist in GScholar and contain significant coverage etc etc etc. So there can be no doubt that the topic satisfies GNG. Many of these sources were already cited in the article before I removed them as a possible copyvio, so there was never any excuse for pretending that the topic isn't notable. It should also be born in mind that a computer program is a creative work, not a product. Even the copyright isn't sold and eventually expires. By analogy, Moby Dick is not a product just because some people sell copies of it. If I was to copy it out by hand for my own private use, the manuscript would definitely be Moby Dick by Herman Melville, but it would not be a product as it would not be sold. One could do the same with the code of a program. So PRODUCT is not the relevant guideline.
• The source that I added to the article is available online in GBooks. You would know that if you had conducted even the most cursory search for sources. Even if it wasn't, that is no excuse for failing to go to a library. Sources are not required to be online.
• There is no advertising in the article. Advertising would be something like "X is the best modeling system in the world; go buy X now; roll up roll up ladies and gentlemen, only $29.95 from Y, your one stop shop for modelling systems" and so forth. If the article has mild POV in the sense of failing to present negative information about the topic, that is not advertising. You would need to actually find a source containing such negative information first. James500 (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The article itself must make a claim of notability as indicated at WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. That claim must be backed up by at least two reliable sources. It is not required that I go looking for the sources myself in order to tag the article as lacking this. If you have found the articles, please add them, and please do so inline.
  • I understand that sources are not required to be online, and I never made a claim otherwise. I said the source is not inline, meaning I have no idea what the reference you added is supposed to support in the article. Please place it inline, using <ref></ref> tags so anyone will be able to see what the reference supports.
  • The example you give is only one type of marketing (specifically, advertising something for sale). There are many other ways an article can appear to be written as a marketing piece instead of as a neutrally-worded encyclopedia article. And I never said that there needed to be negative information included. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Your comments are erroneous. Your first bullet point contradicts NRVE, which says that notability does not depend on the content of articles. Nor does GNG require at least two sources. But I have added an extra source and a link to the existing source anyway. I hope you don't expect me to add every single source available as there are, as you are well aware, dozens. Falsely pretending that you cannot find a source in GBooks or GScholar after you have been given the title constitutes trolling. Refusing to look at a library copy of an offline source constitutes trolling. I have already answered your other points, though it seems that an alternative URL for the bibliography is this URL.
• As for your templates: You need consensus to keep things in articles, not to remove them. That includes templates. Anyway, me and the article creator outnumber you 2 to 1. So there is positive consensus for removal anyway. On top of that, your arguments against notability contradict the wording of NRVE and GNG itself. More to the point, I do not believe that these templates have been added in good faith. Your claim to be unable to find the source cited in the article and to be unaware of the 37 sources listed in the bibliography I pointed you to is impossible to believe. A child could find those sources in GBooks and GScholar with the details I gave you. The logical inference is that you must have found and read all of those sources by now, and that you must therefore know perfectly well the sources satisfy GNG. Either way, the templates have to come off. James500 (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No, GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As the word "sources" is plural, that means "at least two". This is the generally-accepted interpretation. Feel free to ask around.
  • I have never said you need to "add every single source available". What I requested is that you add the sources inline as there is no way to tell what these sources are supposed to support. Even with all the new ones you added, none of them are inline, so it is still impossible to tell what each reference is supporting in the article. Please make the references inline.
  • Regarding WP:NRVE, you failed to remember the last line in that section: "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." Yes, notability doesn't require sources to be listed in an article. WP:V, however, does. If someone (me, for example) challenges the notability of a particular topic, then those who believe the topic to be notable are required to produce the sources (which you have done, here, assuming all those sources have more than a passing mention of GEMSS).
  • That bibliography lists papers and articles where GEMSS is used somewhere in the process. That does nothing to establish notability. Go read WP:GNG again. Unless the articles and papers are addressing GEMSS "directly and in detail", they can not be used to establish the notability of GEMSS. Merely mentioning that GEMSS was used in a particular study is considered a trivial mention and not a basis for establishing notability. None of the references you have added to the article appear to be about GEMSS, but rather papers and articles which may mention the use of GEMSS in passing. If you are unable to produce references which discuss GEMSS "directly and in detail", I will have no other choice but to nominate the article for deletion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I have added an example of an inline citation to help you understand how to do it. If you can do that for the rest of the references you include, that will be helpful. Also, the Bortone reference does help in establishing notability as it has a section in the book that discusses GEMSS "directly and in detail". Only one more such reference is needed to establish notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)