287:
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 ). 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.
803:
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
616:
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,
286:
As I said, the first red flag about deleting the article was posted soon after I created the page (see this version ), which contained almost nothing, as I was just setting the page up. I found that strange, for I thought the idea in
Knowledge was for people to create articles over time, making them
461:
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
Knowledge 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
290:
With my I addressed the notability problem by including the information about the (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
318:
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
197:
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.
822:, 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.--
735:
Searching for this software in Google
Scholar shows 72 results of scientific papers and other that mention GeneXProTools - . This establishes notability since it includes publications from different universities and other institutions in several countries by different people.
219:
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,
298:
I also addressed today the concern about the excess of lists in the article, which in my view is not well informed as most
Knowledge articles about software packages use different kinds of lists to list the different features and versions of the software (see for example
787:. 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.--
899:
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
967:
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
Knowledge article if we follow Knowledge's policys and procedures. --
890:
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:
625:; 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
357:
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
462:
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?
294:
Notwithstanding, I also added today another third party reference, , with comments from two scientists from two prestigious institutions (GlaxoSmithKline and the University of Wales, UK) in support of the software.
166:
585:
757:. 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
283:
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.
387:, 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
685:(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,
224:, 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 Knowledge - which he maybe did:
675:
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!
119:
160:
260:
126:
829:
794:
654:
326:
205:
770:
696:
521:
626:
905:
367:
245:
92:
87:
669:
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
896:
892:
233:
229:
225:
96:
509:
17:
483:
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
79:
181:
855:
test. I think they may do, but I don't speak Portuguese (and there are clearly multiple people of that name in google). If
383:: I did a search and could only find promotional materials. I do not consider KDNuggets.com to be a reliable source under
148:
889:. For all I can tell, that seems to be the core notability for both GeneXproTools and Candida Ferreira: 2 books and : -->
366:
article needs cleanup, too. It's not at all encyclopedic style, listing all the revisions... unreadable and worthless. --
819:
716:
as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. If such sources get added, feel free to ping my talk page
630:
622:
919:
882:
758:
513:
319:
reported on it. As for the KDnuggets report it's a recycled press release in a news feed, not an independent report.--
221:
621:
which is the equivalent to Google News in Portugal (Sapo is also the most important search engine in Portugal): The
996:
689:
receiving any other mentioning in mass media is an indicator of it being not relevant enough for Knowledge, i.e.
40:
449:
142:
774:
700:
525:
517:
909:
371:
249:
977:
956:
931:
927:
913:
872:
868:
833:
813:
798:
778:
745:
725:
721:
704:
658:
642:
611:
568:
529:
503:
471:
453:
432:
404:
375:
348:
330:
312:
272:
253:
209:
138:
61:
809:
741:
467:
992:
565:
500:
83:
36:
856:
848:
973:
602:
480:
188:
57:
805:
737:
463:
824:
789:
762:
649:
445:
321:
241:
200:
174:
75:
67:
634:
340:
304:
923:
864:
717:
577:
400:
268:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
991:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
952:
944:
638:
557:
492:
414:
344:
308:
647:
As far as I can see none of those mention GeneXproTools, so none is a suitable reference.--
154:
969:
784:
593:
542:
392:
53:
863:
test, we can then merge and redirect all this to that biography and all go home happy.
860:
852:
901:
761:(the main articles seems to be cited 958 + 360 + 191 + 58 = approx. 1500 times), and
589:
488:
484:
388:
240:
help with notability of at least the GEP page, but they may also support the product
588:
doesn't bring up anything outside of press releases. The subject fails to meet the
581:
546:
426:
396:
384:
264:
113:
633:, PR Manager of Microsoft Portugal about the Microsoft Portugal Software Awards.
948:
553:
550:
363:
300:
673:
page, not a press release at the homepage of GXPT, as this is not third-party.
417:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
965:
897:
Talk:Gene expression programming#Critical_responses_from_researchers
234:
Talk:Gene expression programming#Critical_responses_from_researchers
985:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
618:
520:
to avoid deletion. No need for investigation/action though. --
893:
Talk:Gene_expression_programming#Dubious_claims_throughout
230:
Talk:Gene expression programming#Dubious_claims_throughout
964:- The name is confirmed as being spelled "GeneXproTools".
512:
seems to be an account associated with GeneXProTools and
516:. Apparently no article contributions, so this could be
886:
627:
fifth edition of the Microsoft Portugal Software Awards
109:
105:
101:
173:
922:
is not in a fit state to have anything merged to it.
765:
is better suited as a paragraph in this article as a
424:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
444:. Not notable. Bad references, self promotion.
847:while we're here, it's worth considering whether
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
999:). No further edits should be made to this page.
228:). Please have a look at the talk page of this:
226:Talk:Gene expression programming#Copyright_issue
580:or press releases, and neither are considered
261:list of Software-related deletion discussions
187:
8:
617:I’m including here 3 links for some news on
259:Note: This debate has been included in the
576:. Most of the citations listed are either
258:
623:edition of the 2001 awards (4th edition)
631:interview in 2001 with Rodolfo Oliveira
943:this poorly sourced piece of obvious
804:adding reasons for the page to stay.
7:
695:(now: merge into GEP, see below). --
339:I think we should agree to disagree.
215:I just restored my tag requesting
24:
510:Special:Contributions/Bartolrod
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
755:You already voted "keep" above
1:
978:10:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
957:00:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
932:07:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
914:07:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
873:21:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
834:20:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
820:Knowledge:Search engine test
814:20:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
799:18:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
779:17:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
746:15:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
726:00:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
705:09:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
659:22:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
643:21:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
612:02:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
569:23:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
530:09:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
504:23:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
472:09:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
454:02:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
433:22:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
405:15:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
376:06:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
349:20:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
331:19:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
313:18:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
273:13:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
254:20:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
210:19:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
62:00:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
920:Gene expression programming
883:Gene expression programming
759:Gene expression programming
590:general notability criteria
514:Gene expression programming
222:Gene expression programming
1016:
291:vouched for the software.
681:notable, there should be
677:However, if the software
988:Please do not modify it.
767:reference implementation
32:Please do not modify it.
518:Knowledge:Sock puppetry
885:as I suggested above?
362:as of now. Oh and the
683:many other references
895:also from science:
244:to some extend. --
236:. These resources
48:The result was
827:
792:
652:
435:
324:
275:
203:
1007:
990:
887:Section Software
857:Cândida Ferreira
849:Cândida Ferreira
823:
788:
648:
609:
600:
562:
547:reliable sources
497:
429:
423:
419:
320:
199:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
997:deletion review
986:
832:
797:
657:
603:
594:
584:. A search for
560:
545:-spam with few
495:
427:
412:
329:
208:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1013:
1011:
1002:
1001:
981:
980:
959:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
828:
825:JohnBlackburne
818:Then see also
801:
793:
790:JohnBlackburne
781:
749:
748:
728:
710:
709:
708:
707:
664:
663:
662:
661:
653:
650:JohnBlackburne
614:
578:self-published
571:
535:
534:
533:
532:
506:
475:
474:
456:
446:LogicalCreator
438:
437:
436:
421:
420:
409:
408:
407:
378:
354:
353:
352:
351:
334:
333:
325:
322:JohnBlackburne
281:
280:
277:
276:
256:
204:
201:JohnBlackburne
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1012:
1000:
998:
994:
989:
983:
982:
979:
975:
971:
966:
963:
960:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
939:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
916:
915:
911:
907:
903:
898:
894:
888:
884:
880:
876:
875:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
843:
842:
835:
831:
826:
821:
817:
816:
815:
811:
807:
802:
800:
796:
791:
786:
782:
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
763:GeneXproTools
760:
756:
753:
752:
751:
750:
747:
743:
739:
734:
733:
729:
727:
723:
719:
715:
712:
711:
706:
702:
698:
694:
693:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
667:
666:
665:
660:
656:
651:
646:
645:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
615:
613:
610:
607:
601:
599:
598:
591:
587:
586:news articles
583:
579:
575:
572:
570:
567:
564:
563:
555:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:
536:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
505:
502:
499:
498:
490:
486:
482:
481:WP:OTHERSTUFF
479:
478:
477:
476:
473:
469:
465:
460:
457:
455:
451:
447:
443:
440:
439:
434:
431:
430:
422:
418:
416:
411:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
379:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
356:
355:
350:
346:
342:
338:
337:
336:
335:
332:
328:
323:
317:
316:
315:
314:
310:
306:
302:
296:
292:
288:
284:
279:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
257:
255:
251:
247:
243:
242:GeneXproTools
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
218:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
202:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:GeneXproTools
73:
72:
69:
68:GeneXproTools
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
987:
984:
961:
940:
924:Stuartyeates
878:
865:Stuartyeates
844:
771:91.52.32.135
766:
754:
731:
730:
718:Stuartyeates
713:
697:91.52.32.135
691:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
605:
596:
595:
573:
558:
538:
522:91.52.32.135
493:
458:
441:
425:
413:
380:
359:
297:
293:
289:
285:
282:
237:
216:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
906:91.52.31.45
859:passes the
851:passes the
769:. Sorry. --
368:91.52.17.69
364:Mathematica
360:non notable
301:Mathematica
246:91.52.40.49
217:third party
161:free images
970:Uzma Gamal
918:Right now
877:How about
597:xanchester
554:notability
541:- obvious
508:Note that
54:Beeblebrox
993:talk page
945:WP:ADVERT
806:Bartolrod
738:Bartolrod
629:; and an
619:Sapo News
464:Bartolrod
265:• Gene93k
37:talk page
995:or in a
785:WP:GHITS
671:original
582:reliable
559:Stalwart
494:Stalwart
415:Relisted
393:WP:NSOFT
120:View log
39:or in a
879:merging
861:WP:PROF
853:WP:PROF
845:Comment
428:MBisanz
397:Batard0
167:WPÂ refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
962:Delete
949:Qworty
941:Delete
902:WP:COI
714:Delete
692:delete
635:Oritnk
574:Delete
566:(talk)
551:verify
539:Delete
501:(talk)
489:WP:SOC
485:WP:SPA
442:Delete
389:WP:GNG
381:Delete
341:Oritnk
305:Oritnk
139:Google
97:delete
50:delete
881:into
830:deeds
795:deeds
655:deeds
543:promo
385:WP:RS
327:deeds
206:deeds
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
974:talk
953:talk
928:talk
910:talk
904:. --
869:talk
810:talk
783:See
775:talk
742:talk
732:Keep
722:talk
701:talk
679:were
639:talk
526:talk
487:and
468:talk
459:Keep
450:talk
401:talk
395:. --
391:and
372:talk
345:talk
309:talk
269:talk
250:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
687:not
592:.--
561:111
549:to
496:111
303:).
238:may
189:TWL
118:– (
976:)
955:)
947:.
930:)
912:)
871:)
812:)
777:)
744:)
724:)
703:)
641:)
556:.
528:)
491:.
470:)
452:)
403:)
374:)
347:)
311:)
271:)
263:.
252:)
232:,
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
972:(
951:(
926:(
908:(
867:(
808:(
773:(
740:(
720:(
699:(
637:(
608:)
606:t
604:(
524:(
466:(
448:(
399:(
370:(
343:(
307:(
267:(
248:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.