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.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 Eurekalert, 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). Blaine Bettinger, who used our services is a prominent blogger [see: https://thegeneticgenealogist.com/13-2/ ], cited in the NYT and other sources. He is quoted in that article as well.{GenomeWeb]Dnauser (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC).

Let's recap: ISOGG is the primary organization of record for genetic genealogy. It references and lists articles on FTDNA, 23andme, Full Genomes Corporation, and Britains DNA, among others. Of that list of major companies, only FTDNA and Full Genomes offer full Y chromosome sequencing. ISOGG's articles are curated by a well-qualified team, of which Mr. Weller is unfamiliar. ChrisR happens to be published in this area, by the way. Debbie Kennett has written a number of books on the subject.Dnauser (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence we're seeing commentary based on familiarity with ISOGG, familiarity with the DNA technology or familiarity with the industry.Dnauser (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC). The question of notability is directly connected to the reasons why FGC was mentioned in GenomeWeb, Eureaka Alert, the Nature article I mentioned previously as well as in the ISOGG wiki. Those organizations have significant prominence in our industry and wouldn't have mentioned our work without acknowledgement of its significance or importance.

The first article on us in GenomeWeb wasn't a brief mention, and neither was the second. Both articles focused on FTDNA and FGC as the two main players in this area. Those aren't brief mentions. Dnauser (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's another reference from ISOGG: https://isogg.org/wiki/Y-DNA_SNP_testing_chartDnauser (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

In that list, at the link above, there are six companies listed that provide DNA testing services. Of those six, only three are listed in wikipedia (FTDNA, 23andme, and Genographic Project). Of the three who are listed, two of them provide only entry level products (i.e. $99 tests). In wikipedia, there is a clear bias to larger organizations. Secondarily, let's look at the visibility of that page 77,000 + views. This is not a minor wiki, but a wiki of record for the genetic genealogy community.Dnauser (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC).Dnauser (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The question of notability is directly connected to the reasons why FGC was mentioned in GenomeWeb, Eureaka Alert, the Nature article I mentioned previously as well as in the ISOGG wiki. Those organizations have significant prominence in our industry and wouldn't have mentioned our work without acknowledgement of its significance or importance.Dnauser (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC). We were also mentioned, albeit briefly, in this article in the New York Times: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-dna-test/#the-competition The New York Times (Wirecutter is affiliated with the New York Times) focused on inexpensive, entry level genetic genealogy testing, which is why they made brief mention of us. Dnauser (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say that my statement that ChrisR is the main editor is false and inaccurate. ChrisR started the article and has edited it 57 times, Debbie Kennett 25 times. I don't know who has added more text. Brief mentions don't count towards notability by our criteria, whatever they mean elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Debbie Kennett is the main editor because I'm familiar with who curates the page. She's also the main editor of the other link, here: https://isogg.org/wiki/Y-DNA_SNP_testing_chart

• draftify - User:Dnauser there ~might~ be a Wikipedia article here, but this is absolutely not a Wikipedia article. Will you please agree to moving this article to draft space and putting it through the WP:AFC process, where you can follow the guidance of independent reviewers to see if this can be put in shape to be "live"? This is what you should have done originally, per the WP:COI guideline. If you agree, I will be happy to do the move for you, and this AfD can be withdrawn. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog:

I can agree with that process. I was not familiar with the draftify process. I think what may be at issue here is familiarity with our niche industry. My opinion is that the ISOGG wiki references establish notability, in combination with the other references.Dnauser (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC).

Great! Let me just double check -- User:Doug Weller you are fine with withdrawing the AfD and draftifying? You can do both the withdraw and move to draft if you want, or I will do the move and tag for AfC after you withdraw it. Whatever you want. Dnauser please also see your talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog: I am not familiar with the draftify process, so I'd ask that you proceed. Best.Dnauser (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I know that. I am waiting to hear back from Doug that he consents to this. He and I will take care of it. You will see it all. Please be patient. I am in the process of posting some stuff on your talk page (User talk:Dnauser) - we can work through some things there. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Understood. My recommendation would be that consideration and evaluation should also be based upon experience with the industry and in particular familiarity with next generation sequencing technology and consumer genomics. It is a fast moving area. It is a specialized area, I understand. Whole genome sequencing and Y chromosome sequencing are specialized areas of discussion. It is a fair point to discuss how specialized a topic can be and be included in Wikipedia. Dnauser (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)