Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oragene


 * 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, after the improvements to the article since the AfD began. Well done to everyone who contributed to them. Deryck C. 17:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Oragene

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable device. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant  (talk)  19:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete no demonstration of notability. - Frankie1969 (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Oragene is a notable technique. The article before had little independent references to show its notability, which I have now fixed. Both the 'Promega' and 'Biosciences' source are from very prominent manufacturers of the field.  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 23:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This was enough to establish notability for me. (I've added it to the article.) --Kvng (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The Oragene system is one of many types of saliva DNA collection systems. Perhaps this would be better as part of an encyclopedic article on DNA collection by saliva or similar. Robert Hiller (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with you, someone should make a page called DNA collection (surprised it does not already exist on WP), but I also think that because Oragene is a brand rather than a method, and it is has notability to stand as its own article, it should stay until the DNA collection article has time to mature a little. That's just my take.  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 07:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B  music  ian  03:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment It looks like the Comment by Kinkreet is actually a Keep vote. I think there's adequate consensus to keep. Previous comments calming lack of notability/coverage were from before I added a ref from Time magazine. Let's close this. --Kvng (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. TIME article is significant coverage. Lord Roem (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2012 (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.