- GeneXproTools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article for non-notable software. Refs are almost all to the company's web site, except a couple to a paper and book by the software's developer. Prodded and tagged but both were removed without addressing the concerns. A search turns up nothing indicating notability. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I just restored my tag requesting third party references, as all that was added was the tutorial and book by again the same author (= first party). All that I could find in Google were the first author pages, and spammy "software download" sites, so I could not find a reliably third party source. There is a related page, Gene expression programming, which I tagged for copyright violation concerns (however, as I assume the author might be the author of the book, too, he could license it for Wikipedia - which he maybe did: Talk:Gene expression programming#Copyright_issue). Please have a look at the talk page of this: Talk:Gene expression programming#Dubious_claims_throughout, Talk:Gene expression programming#Critical_responses_from_researchers. These resources may help with notability of at least the GEP page, but they may also support the product GeneXproTools to some extend. --91.52.40.49 (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
First of all let me apologize for not commenting on this forum before, but I really thought it was a robot posting all those red flags, as they appeared immediately after the creation of the page.
As I said, the first red flag about deleting the article was posted soon after I created the page (see this version [here]), which contained almost nothing, as I was just setting the page up. I found that strange, for I thought the idea in Wikipedia was for people to create articles over time, making them better through the collaboration of different people. And this in my view implies being allowed to start an article in a simple way and then add to it over time. So I went on to add more information to the article, addressing the raised issues of notability and references (see comments to my [edits of 11 October 2012]). To my surprise the concerns remain, and I wonder what could be more notable than winning the Microsoft Portugal Science Award 2001 for a software package on version 1.0? So let me reiterate.
With my [edits of 11 October 2012] I addressed the notability problem by including the information about the [Microsoft Portugal Science Award 2001 for Automatic Problem Solver] (APS is the older name of GeneXproTools, as explained in the article). This award should also serve as a third party reference for the software, as the entire jury of the Microsoft Portugal Science Awards of 2001 vouched for the software.
Notwithstanding, I also added today another third party reference, [KDnuggets], with comments from two scientists from two prestigious institutions (GlaxoSmithKline and the University of Wales, UK) in support of the software.
I also addressed today the concern about the excess of lists in the article, which in my view is not well informed as most Wikipedia articles about software packages use different kinds of lists to list the different features and versions of the software (see for example Mathematica). Oritnk (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- The problems with the "Microsoft Portugal Science Award" is that the source is the company's web site, like almost all the refs. I did actually search for it and found no other mention of it, suggesting it's not a significant award, or at least not significant enough for third parties to have reported on it. As for the KDnuggets report it's a recycled press release in a news feed, not an independent report.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think we should agree to disagree.Oritnk (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Two third-party references in 11 (?) years is *not* a lot. And the KDNuggets cannot even be called a third-party reference, but apparently is a press release by the company itself. Sorry I still consider this product as non notable as of now. Oh and the Mathematica article needs cleanup, too. It's not at all encyclopedic style, listing all the revisions... unreadable and worthless. --91.52.17.69 (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: I did a search and could only find promotional materials. I do not consider KDNuggets.com to be a reliable source under WP:RS, and it could be a press release as mentioned above (this is unclear). A claim about an award on the company's website does not significant independent coverage in reliable sources make. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. --Batard0 (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Bad references, self promotion. LogicalCreator (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)