Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GeneMark


 * 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. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

GeneMark

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. No significant coverage in secondary sources. Essentially an advert. Bladeofgrass (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't be daft. The software is free, so how can it be an advert? It's one of the most widely known and widely used gene prediction programs, and it was the first to use Markov chain models. If you want to judge popularity, type "Gene prediction" into Google. GeneMark is the second hit after Wikipedia! I can tell you didn't look for sources or didn't know how to assess them as there's lots out there.. "Automated methods for prokaryotic genefinding like GLIMMER (Salzberg et al., 1998; Delcher et al., 1999; http://www.tigr.org/software/glimmer/), ORPHEUS (Frishman et al., 1998) and different versions of GeneMark (Lukashin and Borodovsky, 1998; Besemer and Borodovsky, 1999; Besemer et al., 2001) have been widely used in genome sequencing projects [see for instance (Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2002; Cerdeno-Tarraga et al., 2003; Wei et al., 2003; McLeod et al., 2004)]." Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - a cursory Google News search turns up a large volume of results and with a quick perusal of the articles such as, , , and easily show that this software is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  13:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Several academic sources covering it, notable algorithm. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2009 (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.