Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oligo Primer Analysis Software (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 OLIGO Primer Analysis Software; Delete Piotr Rychlik; Keep Wojciech Rychlik. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oligo Primer Analysis Software
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article still fails to establish notability. The immense amount of references imho doesn't change the situation, as all independent references only mention this software as a tool, thematically they cover something else. The article has been nominated and was deleted before (result: delete), the issues have not been resolved. Speedy deletion has recently been turned down, however. This product article is unreadable, constitutes advertising, and formes a walled garden with the two biographies of its developers, Wojciech Rychlik and Piotr Rychlik whose notability is established solely on the notability of the product Pgallert (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because the notability of the two biographies is solely (for Piotr Rychlik) or mainly (for Wojciech Rychlik) established on the development of the product in question:

--Pgallert (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * NOTE, I have moved this page to the correct name, the first word should be in all caps. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy - per G4. Recreation of previously-deleted content. // roux   editor review 16:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy as recreation of material deleted via discussion. The metric ton of cites offer no proof of notability. I just love footnotes abuse...--Boffob (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * dirty footnotes love the abuse // roux   editor review 17:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all and cleanup — The two people seem to meet WP:PROF with notability shown by having multiple academic works published. Oligo also meets the general notability guideline with many secondary sources coming from academic sources - which are the most reliable of all the reliable sources. While I do not like the "footnote abuse," either, that is more of an issue of cleanup rather than deletion. Otherwise, I do not see spam nor evidence of a walled garden. MuZemike  ( talk ) 17:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G4) per previous AfD. Themfromspace (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If it is indeed true this was the first primer design software it's clearly a notable piece of software because then it would've started of a range of software by other companies which is still used in biochemistry/molecular biology today. At the moment I don't have access to the source, but I would consider it reliable (not because of the authors, but because it was in a peer reviewed journal). By the way, the last statement sounds off oligo is short for Oligonucleotide, which is in no way trademarked. -- Mgm|(talk) 18:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all three No evidence they are notable per guidelines. The AfD links on the article pages need to be fixed (at least one of them).ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The wide use of this is shown by the references, and this is a fully sufficient proof of notability. The article is, by the way, much expanded since the previous version, so the "speedy delete" comments here are not relevant/. it's interesting to see articles proposed for deletion because references have been added. As for the bios, they have to be handled separately, and should be removed from this discussion. The factors are not the same--researchers must be discussed in terms of WP:PROF, and that guideline does not apply to the technology. I'll comment on them when there's an appropriate afd to comment.  DGG (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is more of a cleanup issue than a delete. The software is now referenced (needs cleanup) by enough achedemic publications to establish notability in its field. Google matches: There are 2,480 exact matches for "Wojciech Rychlik" and 6780 matches on "Molecular Biology Insights" "inc.", much of which are 2nd and 3rd party research references. I believe the article meets WP:N and WP:V policy, but it needs cleanup. - DustyRain (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- Pcap  ping  23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   -- Pcap  ping  23:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's my take:
 * the software: keep seems sufficiently notable based on the amount of references. Academic publications do not typically publish software reviews, so there is systemic bias that makes software used in academia/scientific communities underrepresented in Wikipedia relative to most consumer software where web-based review abound. If the article on Anti-flirt club is a WP:SNOW keep based on similarly in-passing references, then so is this.
 * Piotr Rychlik: delete. I haven't done my own reasearch on him, but based on what's in the article, he doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO or WP:PROF.
 * Wojciech Rychlik: weak keep. He "was instrumental in discovery of human protein synthesis initiation factor eIF-4E mRNA" may qualify him via WP:PROF point 1. Experts need to comment on this claim. Pcap  ping  23:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, software was the first of a large number of programs, so would be notable even if it were not widely used (which it is). The review specifically mentions OLIGO as a method to design primers, and it is the only such program mentioned, which I think establishes notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Oligo Primer Analysis Software, delete the biographies. The software article has several independent sources that establish notability. Narayanese (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I've read the deleted article and there is nothing new on the current incarnation that wasn't available when it was previously AfD'd and deleted. Trusilver  16:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Was cited in the previous article? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * no; there were in fact only two references. Nor was there any actual indication or even bare assertion that it was in widespread use. Nor did any at the AfD make the least check for references. How anyone could say that poorly referenced article was identical to the present one puzzles me entirely. 01:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all per Trusilver and ChildofMidnight. Stifle (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete P Rychlik-- only 3 published papers in Scopus, almost no citations. Whatever contributions he may have made to this software are unpublished. DGG (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep W Rychlik Scopus shows 28 published papers, highest citation counts 339. 163, for DNA hybridization papers; 99, 90 for other work, including the initiation factor sequence. Anyone who can invent a method where the key paper gets 339 citations is highly notable. It is to be clear proof of his being an authority in the subject. I think he would probably be notable even without it. DGG (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the software. AfD is not cleanup. Miami33139 (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2008 (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.