Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GeneXproTools

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GeneXproTools

(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. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should agree to disagree.Oritnk (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Bad references, self promotion. LogicalCreator (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like a bit of a heavy handed approach for a brand new page. After all there are several other equivalent software packages that have had Wikipedia entries for a long time. It would not be fair to delete this entry without reviewing the status of all the other equivalent software packages many of which have been tagged as non notable but have been allowed to remain. Finally, there are two references, one of which is quite old and offline - maybe someone from Microsoft Portugal would be able to chime in?Bartolrod (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a great argument for keeping this article. It must stand on it's own merits. Would strongly suggest you have a read of WP:SPA and WP:SOC. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Special:Contributions/Bartolrod seems to be an account associated with GeneXProTools and Gene expression programming. Apparently no article contributions, so this could be Wikipedia:Sock puppetry to avoid deletion. No need for investigation/action though. --91.52.32.135 (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious promo-spam with few reliable sources to verify notability. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the citations listed are either self-published or press releases, and neither are considered reliable. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything outside of press releases. The subject fails to meet the general notability criteria.--xanchester (t) 02:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me people are questioning the Microsoft Portugal Science Award of 2001 because they could not find any references. Perhaps if they spoke Portuguese they would have been luckier. A Google search for “concurso nacional de software Microsoft Portugal” returns 344,000 hits. Having said that, I’m including here 3 links for some news on Sapo News which is the equivalent to Google News in Portugal (Sapo is also the most important search engine in Portugal): The edition of the 2001 awards (4th edition); in which the software Automatic Problem Solver participated (unfortunately they didn’t bother to mention the third place in the Science section, but if anyone wishes to inquire further, they could find some useful references from there); the fifth edition of the Microsoft Portugal Software Awards; and an interview in 2001 with Rodolfo Oliveira, PR Manager of Microsoft Portugal about the Microsoft Portugal Software Awards. Oritnk (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see none of those mention GeneXproTools, so none is a suitable reference.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that we do not beliee the Microsoft Portugal Software Award. The only problem is that we would be looking for the original page, not a press release at the homepage of GXPT, as this is not third-party. A news article mentioning the Microsoft Portugal Science Awards, but not the software (which was 3rd in one of how many categories?) is not really backing the software itself! However, if the software were notable, there should be many other references (and even "awards", and better than 3rd in a rather obscure Microsoft-Portugal thing). After all, this software has been around since 2001. For a software that has been around this long, not receiving any other mentioning in mass media is an indicator of it being not relevant enough for Wikipedia, i.e. ~~delete~~ (now: merge into GEP, see below). --91.52.32.135 (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. If such sources get added, feel free to ping my talk page Stuartyeates (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Searching for this software in Google Scholar shows 72 results of scientific papers and other that mention GeneXProTools - [GeneXproTools in Google Scholar http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=genexprotools&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=]. This establishes notability since it includes publications from different universities and other institutions in several countries by different people. Bartolrod (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You already voted "keep" above. The first: "much faster and more accurate than [...] GeneXproTools", the second in "Journal of Fujian College of Forestry" (probably not top ranked?). I believe these references are good for supporting Gene expression programming (the main articles seems to be cited 958 + 360 + 191 + 58 = approx. 1500 times), and GeneXproTools is better suited as a paragraph in this article as a reference implementation. Sorry. --91.52.32.135 (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GHITS. A search shows nothing. It may help you find references but a link to a search engine is not a reference or proof of anything. And I've striken your second !vote as you only get to !vote once, unless you change it in which case the first !vote is normally stricken.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The search results are from Google Scholar, not Google. I published the link here to show that some of those results can be added to the original page to provide notability to the page, which is what has been discussed so far. Sorry about the second keep, I thought I was supposed to add "keeps" when adding reasons for the page to stay. Bartolrod (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then see also Wikipedia:Search engine test, which uses Google as an example but explains that the same applies to all search engines: a bare count of number of hits proves nothing (and may not even be accurate). You can use a search to find sources but a search is not a source, or a reference, or a proof of notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while we're here, it's worth considering whether Cândida Ferreira passes the WP:PROF test. I think they may do, but I don't speak Portuguese (and there are clearly multiple people of that name in google). If Cândida Ferreira passes the WP:PROF test, we can then merge and redirect all this to that biography and all go home happy. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How about merging into Gene expression programming as I suggested above? Section Software. For all I can tell, that seems to be the core notability for both GeneXproTools and Candida Ferreira: 2 books and >1500 citations in Google Scholar. GEP seems to be both her main result and GXT seems to be the reference implementation (the other software mentioned in the article seem to be dead, not having commits for 2+ years). There seems to be some doubt on GEP: Talk:Gene_expression_programming#Dubious_claims_throughout also from science: Talk:Gene expression programming#Critical_responses_from_researchers but it clearly is notable. The copyvio should be easy to resolve by adding attribution to the BY-CC book (I'm not entirely sure how much it was actually copied, or rewritten with the book open, though), then the article needs to be reviewed and cleaned up because of WP:COI. --91.52.31.45 (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right now Gene expression programming is not in a fit state to have anything merged to it. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this poorly sourced piece of obvious WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The name is confirmed as being spelled "GeneXproTools".[1] I didn't find any sources, not eve a press release. There does not appear to be any interaction between those behind GeneXproTools and the media, so there's really nothing to include in the Wikipedia article if we follow Wikipedia's policys and procedures. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2012 (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.