Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primou


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. J I P | Talk 07:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Primou
Appears to be a non-notable extension to a non-notable piece of software. Only incoming link created by the page's author Pak21 09:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; NN. Appears to be a very esoteric piece of software of interest to a small community. If the page described a notable algorithm or if the s/w had won some distinctive award... maybe. But right now I'm not seeing it. Sorry. :) &mdash; RJH 20:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename - PRIMOU is derived from PRIMO. Both are genome processing packages.  If you Google on "PRIMO"+"Genome", you get over 86,000 hits.  "PRIMOU"+"Genome" gets less than 1,000 hits.  Therefore, I think PRIMO is plenty notable.  We should move the article to PRIMO, and include a section on PRIMOU. Johntex\talk 23:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that I only got 405 hits for "PRIMOU"+"Genome". In some cases it is necessary to be cautious about counting google hits. They can include advertisements and mirrors. But a rename would work for me, although I'd be interested in seeing the whole topic of software analysis of the genome be better developed, rather than having individual package pages. &mdash; RJH 15:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that a bigger genome sequence analysis software article would be very nice to have. I will add it to my lengthy to-do list, although I won't be able to do it justice on my own. I do think there would be several programs that would be worthy of their own article. PRIMO+PRIMOU would be one. GCG Wisconsin Package would be another (176,000 Google hits under that name alone, and it has gone by several different names).Johntex\talk 02:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or join with PRIMO. That way it is not lost in space. PRIMOU a strong improvement over PRIMO, but you only care about popularity, not quality. Michael Janich 07:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Untrue. I suspect that most people here like both notability and quality. :) &mdash; RJH 15:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't quite synonymous with popularity...but there has to be something other than the editor's opinion (see WP:OR) to support the claim of its awesomeness. So like if it got some good write-ups in trade magazines or professional journals or something, it could still be somewhat notable, even if it never caught on.  A large part of the concern with notability is actually derived from the fact that it's hard to find reliable information about stuff that isn't well-known or remarkable (see WP:V). Which, if there are some articles about it somewhere, references in the article would go a long way toward establishing its notability and thereby its keepability. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:19, 29 March 2006 (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.