Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full Genomes Corporation

Full Genomes Corporation

Full Genomes Corporation (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)

Article created by its CEO. To give him credit, he seems to have contacted OTRS and was advised to add a connected contributor tag to the talk page. However, it seems to fail WP:ORG as either the sources fail WP:RS or do not discuss it in depth. I found a mention of it in a self-published book and here in an RS but only one sentence. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Sources are either self-published, blogs, PR-rewrites or super obscure. WP:CORPSPAM and WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I contacted wikipedia support and was advised to add the COI tag.Dnauser (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC) However, the ISOGG source is not obscure. ISOGG is the primary reference for genetic genealogy. https://isogg.org/wiki/Full_Genomes_Corporation. That's a third party site. See lisitng for ISOGG here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_of_Genetic_Genealogy Dnauser (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, the blogs in question are prominent blogs within the genetic genealogy community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnauser (talk • contribs) 10:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment The ISOGG site is not obscure but it is a wiki, "is a website on which users collaboratively modify content and structure directly from the web browser". I'm not sure if absolutely anyone is allowed to edit, but the history of the article on your company's history is here and was written mainly by an editor who describes themself as a student.[1] In any case it fails WP:RS, just as Wikipedia itself does.

Editing is only done by ISOGG staff. Editing cannot be done by the general public. Kennett, the primary editor of that wiki, is "Honorary Research Associate in the Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment at University College London," see: http://ggi2013.blogspot.com/2014/10/debbie-kennett-dna-for-beginners.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnauser (talk • contribs) 12:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Another national news article: GenomeWeb: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:00GUwZ8Ox5wJ:https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing-technology/consumer-genomics-firms-hope-lower-costs-new-features-will-make-y-chromosome+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

See also this article in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.36?WT.ec_id=NRG-201708&spMailingID=54506078&spUserID=MTc2NzQ3MDc1OAS2&spJobID=1202653974&spReportId=MTIwMjY1Mzk3NAS2

Jobling, first author of that paper (see: https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/genetics/people/jobling ), is a world-renowned expert in the area of Y chromosome phylogeny. He cites us and FTDNA. The article is behind a paywall. I have a copy that I can email you.Dnauser (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC). The Jobling and Chris Tyler Smith article reviews the scientific background of this particular area. It also addresses the technical reasons why this type of technology yields important findings on the Y chromosome.Dnauser (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Note, again, that the Genomeweb article (Petrone, Jun 26, 2015) mentions only two companies in the United States that do this advanced research on the Y chromosome. In Wikipedia, only FTDNA (Family Tree DNA) is mentioned. That article is not a press release by ourselves.Dnauser (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC). Likewise, in the case of the Nature article, our work on the Y chromosome is cited, as is FTDNA's. However, only FTDNA is mentioned in Wikipedia. Of course, they are a much larger company and much more prominent. Dnauser (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC) There are a couple other papers that cite our work (journal articles). Overall, both companies, i.e. FTDNA and Full Genomes, offer next generation sequencing of the Y chromosome, and both are cited in national articles and scientific journals. If proof is number of citations in press, we're a small group, so we have a limited number of citations and references, in Genomeweb, Nature, a variety of genetics blogs, including Gene Expression, by a prominent genetics blogger. Dnauser (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment No, the main editor at your ISOGG page is not Debbie Kennett but ChrisR, whoever she/she is. The GenomeWeb article doesn't really discuss it, it quotes someone from it. See WP:CORPDEPTH which excludes "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" as evidence of notability. The scientific background isn't relevant here, this is an article about the company itself, not science. Citations are not enough and aren't even mentioned. Doug Weller talk 21:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The statement that ChrisR is the main editor is false and inaccurate and misleading.Dnauser (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC) ChrisR is no longer active as an editor. Your information is not accurate.Dnauser (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You are also ignoring that there were two Genomeweb articles, a major source, an article in Euraalert, as well as the fact that ISOGG is a primary wiki for genetic genealogy and better sourced than wikipedia. Dnauser (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)