- 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 delete. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CASHX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software, failing wikipedia policy at WP:N. One of many related products listed at List of sequence alignment software. No evidence of notability in the article and none on the "official" web page. It's hard to search for relevant ghits because the name CashX is very popular, but this search reveals only 81 hits, and even so many of them are irrelevant. andy (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete examination of the sources reveal the same information repeated several times on university research blogs, we must reject that as conferring notability. It also shows as being used in a research paper, but the research was not about the software, this also does not confer notability. I could be convinced that this has some notability for being unique or important in the very specialized research field, but that is not in the article now. To find sources for this would be such a specialized search, the WP:BURDEN to properly source it must belong to those who wrote it. Miami33139 (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.