Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AliView

AliView

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable bioinformatics package, lack of secondary sources Amkilpatrick (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the problem with keeping page, there has been about 18000 downloads of the software, ca 800 downloads each month, and the software is very popular in segments of bioinformatics. The secondary source is the article in the peer reviewed journal Bioinformatics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.239.198 (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This template must be substituted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability standards are not related to having a lot of downloads: see WP:BIGNUMBER. As for the source, it isn't a secondary source, as it was written by Anders Larsson, the author of the software. If you can find one or more independent sources, that will be very helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The software has so far been used and cited in at least 69 scientiffic articles, does this really need to be included in the wikipedia entry? https://scholar.google.se/scholar?hl=sv&q=aliview&btnG= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.151.81 (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This template must be substituted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the IP addresses (which have so far posted the only "keeps" here) geolocate to the same city (Uppsala). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete academic spam. To meet GNG there must be a few independent sources with substantial discussion. These do not appear to exist. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be fair, IP is right that this software is mentioned in several papers (eg. Journal of Clinical Microbiology). I didn´t dig too deep, but it seems to be mostly bare mention or brief description. Sufficient coverage for Wikipedia article? I tend to agree (these sources are independent and some of them reliable), but I will not cast my vote until further research. My advice to IPs supporting this article: browse through these "scientiffic articles" and use them in the AliView Wikipedia article to save its place here. Pavlor (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this is actually coming close to establishing substance, and not simply something either PR-like or trivial and unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a clarification and summary of my two comments above:
I included the link to the the refering 73 research projects that used and cited the software in this delete-discussion as an indication that the software is "notable" for a large group of people working in bioinformatics. Only this last week, while we have been discussing this issue, the number of research projects that have used and cited the software has increased from 69 to 73! https://scholar.google.se/scholar?hl=sv&q=aliview&btnG=
Regarding the "lack of secondary sources", I would just like clarify that the entry is non opinionated and although the referring article is written by the author of the program, the article is published in a well renowned journal and was reviewed by 3 independent expert referees.
Signed by: Per (author of the article in question and also the "anonymous ip"-comments above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.188.54 (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remember not to vote multiple times. If these academic sources are good, why not take best 2 or 3 and use them in the article? That would certainly raise notability of this article. As of now, no subject independent reliable sources are used, which is fast way to delete. Pavlor (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions, - the thing is that these articles are mainly mentioning they have used the software: "Alignments were manually edited and inspected in AliView", they are not reviews of Alignment software. Isn't the peer review process of an article the guarantee for being reliable although a primary source. Per — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.188.54 (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article you have in mind would be fine for Wikipedia article content, but not for notability. For this purpose you need source written by somebody other (= independent on subject of the article). Even brief mention could help - eg. if several really good papers (top journals of its field of study) mention use of this software, it may be sign of notability. As I wrote, find best 2-3 and add them to the article (eg. AliView was used to visualise research of ..."reference" and ..."reference" etc.). Pavlor (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, I added some references. Per — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.239.132 (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Now, edit some of your superfluous "keep" votes as one editor can use bolded keep only once during AfD. You may be accused of sockpuppetry otherwise (you admited these "keep" votes are yours, so I assume this is only good-faith misunderstanding of AfD rules). Pavlor (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks! Pavlor (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added sources show extensive use of this application by experts in the field. Fine for me. Pavlor (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substance + no credible assertion of significance + no notability = No thanks. (also, I feel like I csd'd this article or something close to a few weeks back, however that could just be deja vu...) TomStar81 (Talk) 16:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Considering the relative abundance of sources for software, I generally expect some solid reliable independent secondary sources. Over here the research paper is not an independent source. The other research papers simply mention that they use the tool, but nothing about the software itself. I see this situation as having a credible claim of significance but not enough for notability. I understand that this is a tool in a niche field, but I still expect some non-trivial independent secondary coverage. (Tools/apps exist for every small field but we can't include them all per WP:NOTDIR. Which is why I insist on some non-trivial independent secondary coverage. If a tool is really notable, it will not be a problem to find non-trivial coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significance at this time; maybe in the future, but that falls under "too soon". Kierzek (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now added a reference to the Google Scholar web page that show that the program has been used and cited in 75 research projects including highest ranking journals souch as PNAS, Nature communications and MBE. The program has been used by research groups spanning all continents:) Only since this discussion started another 6 articles have used and cited the software. I think this is indicating that it is not just "Any Tools/apps that exist for every small field":) Per — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.53.61 (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]