Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BioSmalltalk

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BioSmalltalk

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly specialised piece of software of interest to a relatively small number of people. No attempt made to assert or demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any evidence of third-party sources and this link suggests the software's creator started the article himself. The other links I have found are simply copies of the Google Code page. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable 3rd party references to establish notability of this software. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Currently we've finished and reviewing two articles using this software in real laboratory phylogenetics workflows. I didn't know it was a requirement NOT to be the author to write an article. Actually I may use the same logic for proposing for deletion self-citation scientific articles from specific software researchers, but that is a highly specialized research of interest to a relatively small number of people. It would be nice to be reviewed by specialized article reviewers, I don't know your background. Please, delete the article and it will be back with the proper authoritative references that you need so badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernan mvs (talk • contribs) 05:20, 25 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.