Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GWAS Central


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 01:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

GWAS Central

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Most of the article is copy/paste from this website, confusing article- whether it is only a web based database or an organization/company. But in both cases article doesn't fulfill WP:Web and WP:ORG notability criterion. undefinedBill william compton Talk  12:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)      undefinedBill william compton  Talk  12:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to clarify these points in the text. The project is an academic one funded by the GEN2PHEN EU project and we do not seek to make any profit from this enterprise. However, if you still believe there are problems with our page, why is there no problem with articles on other academic databases such as the dbSNP database and another system funded by the GEN2PHEN project: the LOVD database allowed? I feel these are not dissimilar to our resource in scope. --Theboyfree (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: By the language of article and your comment here, it is quite sure that you've some personal connection with the concern subject; and you're just using it just for advertisement purpose. Articles you're taking about are well written (at least dbSNP) and have enough external references, but this one is clearly absurd. On Wikipedia we've some sort of Notability criterion, but as i mentioned above this article doesn't fulfill anyone of them. I'd advice you instead of writing article before any experience you should refer this Tutorial it will give you some basic ideas about the Wikipedia and editing here.  undefinedBill william compton  Talk  13:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The text has been changed substantially to take into account the points raised. The wikipedia entry should not be deleted as the GWAS Central database has an interesting history. It is notable for originating from the first SNP database, and has evolved into one of the most comprehensive collections of summary-level genome-wide association data available. The three incarnations of this resource which have led to GWAS Central have also been published in high quality peer reviewed journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboyfree (talk • contribs) 17:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've amended the searches above to include the several previous initialisms for this site, which has only operated under its current name for a year. The resulting Google Books search finds sufficient significant coverage (e.g., , , ) to meet WP:GNG. (Google Scholar finds many hits in scientific papers, but it's hard to identify which of these both give significant coverage and are independent.) --Qwfp (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (qualified - non-expert). I am not an expert in the field, but a glance at the article as it is today seems to indicate it is notable. Perhaps some indication of how widespread knowledge and use of this database is could be added if its notability is disputed? The papers referenced are presumably by people associated with the project. Pol098 (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found by Qwfp. The coverage in those is comparable with that for DbSNP, so what's sauce for the goose... Tijfo098 (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.