Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mototaka Nakamura

Mototaka Nakamura

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Mototaka Nakamura (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)

This is a WP:FRINGEBLP of a climate change denier who is so obscure as to really not be identified by the appropriate number of third-party sources. The primary author of this article claims that WP:PROF is satisfied because some of his papers have lots of citations, but there are citogenesis issues for some of these papers within the closed-shop climate change denial community, and, frankly, hundreds of citations over the course of decades is not a particularly high. I just do not see enough evidence that this person is notable and the other WP:BIO indicators seem to be lacking as well. jps (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Not enough reliable secondary sources mention him. I have dug around on JSTOR and Google Books. The only sources that mention him are his own works. Most of the sources on the article are his own publications. WP:RS are seriously lacking. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment So far, the only standard of notability this page might reach is WP:NACADEMIC criteria number one, based on two papers that may demonstrate a "significant impact" of this academic's research. Based on Google Scholar hits (which is not the preferred method, but is what I have available), this academic has one solo-authored paper with ~250 citations and first authorship on a paper with ~150 citations. As a non-expert in his field, I do not know whether this is sufficient for significance. All his other papers are fairly poorly cited. Jlevi (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Based on some discussion and by looking at comparable individuals, I now do not think this passes this criteria. Unless some reliable Japanese-language sources wind up rising (as noted in the comments below) to allow satisfaction of WP:GNG, I would say Delete. Jlevi (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - A few days ago I tried looking for more sources indicating notability and to find better independent coverage (including expert criticism and mentions in wide mainstream papers). I mostly fell on advocacy org sites and blogs, including Friends of Science's (that has a misleading name BTW) and self-published pamphlets like the one I removed here (despite it being a Google books link, it's not a book). I'm also not convinced that WP:NACADEMIC is met. When good expert sources evaluating fringe claims are rare (and we need them to cover the topic) it's usually a sign of WP:TOOSOON and Wikipedia is not the place to popularize things. —PaleoNeonate – 01:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep (article creator). Too bad this isn't an April Fools prank...or is it? First, a comment and question on editor behavior: Is this - which appears to be organizing and recruiting a suppression effort - considered appropriate?[1] Note the creator of the article was not notified.

In addition to having significant impact in his esoteric technical field, his "confessions" book brought a lot of general public attention. This person has been covered in Science[2], and Asahi Shimbun[3], plus some other publications. Japanese language searches may find more coverage.

There is no specific numerical criterion available to apply, but I feel having dozens of citations for some works, totalling hundreds over the years, should be sufficient when considering the very specialized nature of the works.

General Comments: A technocracy source[4] was deleted, rather than talk about it more, but it added a few comments to the quadrant source, so it also demonstrates additional coverage of this person and his work, from an arguably reliable source. This article was written without using any source I thought was of questionable quality/reliability; however, there is a lot of additional coverage of the person, his work, his "breaking ranks" and becoming notorious in the blogosphere, and in articles that will take more time to go through and form opinions on reliability and weight.

Detailed Comments: He has 14 technical publications listed at American Meteorological Society, which no one should claim is "fringe." [5]

Google Scholar search results and citations.[6]

This article in Science, shows the person and his work, had impact, early in career.

Climate modeling's fudge factor comes under fire, RA Kerr - Science, 1994 - go.gale.com, … In a study now in press at the Journal of Climate, Mototaka Nakamura, Peter Stone, and Jochem Marotzke of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) report that they deliberately introduced an error into a climate model, then seemingly adjusted the error away, only to … Cited: 41

It is not insignificant that M. Nakamura is second author of "The role of high-and low-frequency dynamics in blocking formation" (cited 268 times) and two M. Nakamura works are cited as references therein:[7]

(1) 1994: Characteristics of potential vorticity mixing by breaking Rossby waves in the vicinity of a jet. Ph.D. dissertation, Cited 18 times

(2) 1994: The effects of flow asymmetry on the direction of Rossby wave breaking. J. Atmos. Sci.,51, 2031–2045. Cited 72 times

Other citations, as primary author, reverse order by year, bolded because of a comment about "the 1990s":

• Impacts of the Oyashio temperature front on the regional climate, M Nakamura, T Miyama - Journal of Climate, 2014 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 13

• Greenland Sea surface temperature change and accompanying changes in the Northern Hemispheric climate, M Nakamura - Journal of climate, 2013 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 4

• Impacts of SST anomalies in the Agulhas Current system on the regional climate variability, M Nakamura - Journal of climate, 2012 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 14

• Quasigeostrophic transient wave activity flux: Updated climatology and its role in polar vortex anomalies, M Nakamura, M Kadota… - Journal of the atmospheric …, 2010 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 5

• Dominant anomaly patterns in the near-surface baroclinicity and accompanying anomalies in the atmosphere and oceans. Part II: North Pacific basin; M Nakamura, S Yamane - Journal of climate,2010 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 26

• Potential vorticity and eddy potential enstrophy in the North Atlantic Ocean simulated by a global eddy-resolving model, M Nakamura, T Kagimoto - Dynamics of atmospheres and oceans, 2006 - Zitiert von: 15

• Dominant anomaly patterns in the near-surface baroclinicity and accompanying anomalies in the atmosphere and oceans. Part I: North Atlantic basin, M Nakamura, S Yamane - Journal of climate, 2009 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 32

• Transient wave activity and its fluxes in the North Atlantic Ocean simulated by a global eddy-resolving model, M Nakamura, T Kagimoto - Dynamics of atmospheres and oceans, 2006 - Elsevier, Zitiert von: 5

• A simulation study of the 2003 heatwave in Europe, M Nakamura, T Enomoto, S Yamane - J Earth Sim, 2005 - jamstec.go.jp, Zitiert von: 24

• Diagnoses of an eddy-resolving Atlantic Ocean model simulation in the vicinity of the Gulf Stream. Part II: Eddy potential enstrophy and eddy potential vorticity fluxes, M Nakamura, Y Chao - Journal of physical oceanography, 2002 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 3

• Diagnoses of an eddy-resolving Atlantic Ocean model simulation in the vicinity of the Gulf Stream. Part I: Potential vorticity, M Nakamura, Y Chao - Journal of physical oceanography, 2001 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 11

• Characteristics of three‐dimensional quasi‐geostrophic transient eddy propagation in the vicinity of a simulated Gulf Stream, M Nakamura, Y Chao - Journal of Geophysical Research …, 2000 - Wiley Online Library, Zitiert von: 10

• On the eddy isopycnal thickness diffusivity of the Gent–McWilliams subgrid mixing parameterization, M Nakamura, Y Chao - Journal of climate, 2000 - journals.ametsoc.org, Cited 38 times

• On modified rotational and divergent eddy fluxes and their application to blocking diagnoses, M Nakamura - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological …, 1998 - Wiley Online Library, Zitiert von: 6

• Effects of ice albedo and runoff feedbacks on the thermohaline circulation, M Nakamura - Journal of climate, 1996 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 17

• Destabilization of the thermohaline circulation by atmospheric eddy transports, M Nakamura, PH Stone, J Marotzke - Journal of Climate, 1994 - journals.ametsoc.org, Cited 152 times

-- Yae4 (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Citations are only moderate in a high citation field, and I don't see other signs of notability. I'm concerned at how the article uses his past affiliations to give him a veneer of respectability (if he has a current academic post, I can't find it). A single book (self-publisher even?) isn't likely to give WP:NAUTHOR, and the coverage mostly consists of the review by Tony Thomas and various rehashes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment (by article creator). For what it's worth, comparison with other Meteorologist articles... In terms of sourcing and accomplishments, Mototaka Nakamura seems at least as notable and well-sourced as some other meteorologist BLP articles such as Nana Klutse, Reto Knutti, Peter_Cox_(climatologist), Robert H. Johns, Rely Zlatarovic.

Most of the more "highly cited" articles are the "study of studies" type Wikipedia relies on so heavily, or less specialized/focused or more policy type works. As for employment, "coming out" as a non-alarmist or honestly publicizing the high uncertainties of climate model predictions are usually career ending moves. A few other examples have even made it into Wikipedia... Nakamura wrote what sounds like a goodbye to the field, "I have more-or-less lost interest in the climate science and am not thrilled to spend so much of my time and energy in this kind of writing beyond the point that satisfies my own sense of obligation to the US and Japanese tax payers who financially supported my higher education and spontaneous and free research activity." -- Yae4 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure the meteorologists brought up for comparison support this argument. Just looking at Reto Knutti's publications, this individual has five publications with 1000+ citations, and >20 with 200+. If these people are used for the purpose of comparison, it seems the argument would be for delete based on the comparison. Jlevi (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but my point was Nakamura Wikipedia article is better, and better sourced. It looks to me like Knutti is 2nd or 3rd author on most of the highly cited publications. Maybe Klutse[8] is a closer comparison (by primary author counts). Zlatarovic is too old to use Google scholar. I don't claim Nakamura is the most prolific or most cited, but he is in the ballpark of some others in Wikipedia, at least. Plus his work got arguably more notoriety (or infamy) for the general public. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Article status/quality/completeness is unrelated to notability, which is the primary purpose of this discussion. For more information, consider looking at WP:ARTN. Jlevi (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Procedure question: @ජපස: aka jps, Is there a Japan-related AfD list this could be added to? -- Yae4 (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is. I see a volunteer already added it, but in general you can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting for someone who has the tools enabled to list discussions efficiently. I use WP:Twinkle which does all the sorting at set-up, but there are other volunteers who add these discussions to other lists after the fact. jps (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Eh, delete I think - the sources cited are almost all primary (e.g. mentioned on climate change denialist blog, source, link to climate change denialist blog) and there really isn't much else out there, in part because the sources that do discuss him are almost always unreliable (e.g. they promote climate change denial). Guy (help!) 16:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Citation profile too underwhelming to pass WP:PROF#C1 (an h-index of only 13, in a field where citation counts are actually informative). No other evidence of notability per WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or any other applicable guideline. XOR'easter (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)