Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GeneCalling (2nd nomination)


 * 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. "Outdated" is indeed not a reason for deletion and the other issues appear to have been resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

GeneCalling
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

1st nomination was in 2007; the few folks who !voted, noted then this was PROMO but found it notable. Article was created by a SPA (Special:Contributions/Mbeach14) and has hardly changed since it was created, and technology is now far outdated. No reason for this promo cruft to exist. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion at present about whether this should be kept or deleted, but must point out that the technology being far outdated is not a valid reason for, or contributory factor towards, deletion. We cover the history of science as well as current science. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, When you look at the article's history it appears that Seraphimblade has removed much of the promotional stuff. What remains seems to be in line with the sentiment held at the last AfD which was kept. 92.2.76.202 (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * note to closer: per its contribs IP appears to have arrived simply to oppose my !votes; this is a weak rationale as is the other. I appear to have a "fan" in Manchester. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Outdated is no reason to delete.  Perhaps even adds strength to keep argument, so that there is some encyclopedic record of it.  Promotional argument has been largely addressed.   Eno Lirpa (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - As stated above, outdated isn't a reason to delete. -- Dane 2007  talk 18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * nobody voting !keep is paying attention to the abysmal, badly-sourced, PROMO state of the article. In the face of these thoughtless !votes it is clear that the article will be kept and I will just have to withdraw this and rewrite it from scratch.  Frustrating but this is the nature of working in a community Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I partially rewrote the article by cutting promotional content, rewriting the lead, and adding independent reliable sources. Of the sources in the article, The Kirst 2005, Green 2001, and Klein 2002 sources seem independent reliable sources with enough depth to write a short article on the topic. Multiple reliable sources are sufficient for notability per WP:GNG and with the promotional content largely gone, WP:PROMO and WP:TNT no longer apply. There is of course much room for improvement, but the article has WP:POTENTIAL. A notable topic and an article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2016 (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.