Talk:Polbase

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because...This article is not promoting any given subject and remains neutral. It only lists factual evidence about the topic as provided by various sources. Furthermore, it is a work in progress Muzzie13 (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is intended to be similar to DbSNP and many other articles the Biological database category. So I don't think it meets the requirements for CSD A7 or CSD G11 Bwlang (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This article needs references that demonstrate that its subject has been the topic of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Such references need to 1) verify the facts presented in the article, and 2) establish that the subject meets the notability criteria for inclusion. Even a minimal credible claim to meeting the criteria for inclusion will be sufficient to prevent a speedy deletion, though it might not be enough to prevent deletion via other deletion processes. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

The page has been updated with a reference from the United States Department of Health and Human Services. There is no further reason it should be tagged for speedy deletionMuzzie13 (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a credible claim to notability, but it does not go far enough to establish that it meets the notability criteria in my book. I will go ahead and remove the speedy deletion tag to give you guys time to work on the article; however, if my advice above is not heeded, someone will eventually come by and nominate this article for deletion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added additional references to external sites, so I will now remove the notability and reliable sources warnings.

Bwlang (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Of the 9 references currently on the article, 6 of them are not independent of the article subject and one other is a dead link. The other two establish that this database exists but not that it meets notability criteria. I am re-adding those tags. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected the bad link and added a link to the NIH's funding information. There are now 4 independent, reliable, secondary sources referred to in this article. Three are references to reports on Polbase presented at multiple scientific conferences, one to a description of the US Government funding of Polbase. Is this not sufficient information to establish notability? If not, other databases in the biological databases category should also be reconsidered for inclusion due to notability concerns.

Bwlang (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This subject is pretty borderline as far as meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines is concerned. However, I'm inclined to give this article the benefit of the doubt and stop pursuing deletion mainly because of my own personal academic background. That being said, I'm just another editor and can't stop anyone else from nominating this article for deletion. If you want to prevent this article from being deleted further down the road, here's some advice:

• All of the independent sources you have provided only establish that it exists. Existence ≠ notability. Demonstrating that it exists is great, but using a conference schedule with Polbase somewhere in the middle of a bunch of other topics is considered a passing mention and not significant coverage. Have the organizers of these conferences written anything about Polbase, or has anyone written about it in a scholarly journal, newspaper, or other respected mainstream periodical?
• NIH funding is great, and is pretty much what saved this article from speedy deletion in my book, though others may disagree. What I don't know is if getting this type of funding is highly exclusive, or if it's granted to anyone that meets certain criteria and puts together a sane, coherent grant proposal. Is "a grant from the NIH's SBIR program" a reference to the Small Business Innovation Research program? Again, that in and of itself might not be enough to establish meeting notability criteria, but it's definitely a step towards it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention in my last post that the argument of "article X exists so article Y should exist too" holds very little weight. But since you specifically mentioned dbSNP, I went over and took a look at that article and found that while it's not greatly written by Wikipedia standards (specifically, it appears to be written for people who already have knowledge of the subject matter and not a general audience), it cites several scholarly journal articles that are about that database and not just the subject matter that that database covers. While it does cite the latter, the former is what establishes that it meets notability criteria. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain in more detail. Yes the SBIR program is the Small Business Innovation Research program. It's a competitive grant, similar to other NIH grants so does, to some degree, speak to notability. I expect there will be more information about Polbase published in scientific journals soon so I'll include those references here when they are available. We'll see what others think about Polbase's notability; I think it's notable - but my viewpoint is certainly not objective.

Bwlang (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)