Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progeniq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. The only dissenting views were from SPA's — Caknuck 04:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progeniq

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Progeniq (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested speedy G11 (spam). The software seems to be nonnotable, and article history reveals a likely WP:COI, but the references section is not empty. Nonetheless, once the COI would be removed, there is no evidence that a neutral article would meet inclusion criteria. Shalom Hello 01:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Its a Biotechnology company in Singapore, and one of the more notable emerging startups from Singapore in awhile. The article is neutral enough, there are other company articles on FPGA technologies which are fairly neutral and acceptable as well, including CLC_bio, Mitrionics LK Wong 04:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC) — LK Wong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete. The links seem to be to white papers, i.e. self-published, so I don't see multiple sources of independent coverage. Further, I don't see any claims that meet WP:CORP. —C.Fred (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fred and also non-notable. Also users seem to be removing AfD tag so please be aware of this. - Shudde talk 05:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No deletion. The links are independent sources from Apple and AMD, and are not internally published. Please go through the references and check your claims. The references are also from notable companies in Wikipedia Apple and AMD, so it should meet the WP:CORP requirements. LK Wong 06:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The BioBoost white paper is published by Progeniq (note the copyright notice). The content at the Apple site is written by a Progeniq employee (note author Darran Nathan's email address). The AMD white paper is about acceleration technologies and does not mention Progeniq by name. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The AMD white paper is about acceleration technologies, and mentioned Progeniq by name on Page 8, and includes a low-res photo of the BioBoost. Article content talks about BioBoost exhibit at Apple WWDC, which looks correct. T Saunders 02:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, strongly. Inappropriate POV tone: yet another business claiming to be a "solution provider". Jargony to the point of unintelligibility, very vague, and free from context: they are "developing highly optimized software with multiple-fold speedups". Nothing here suggests that this is a biotechnology company. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No deletion - probably more bioinformatics than biotechnology. Solutions look real, Blast, Smith_waterman, Clustalw etc are legit bioinformatics algorithms and commonly used, from NPOV. Author should take more care to improve and elaborate on context. Overall its still understandable. T Saunders 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)— T Saunders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete -- no reliable sources. The first is their own site, the second is a list of links, and the third has two trivial mentions, on pages 8 and 9 of an 11-page document. Appears to be a NN company. Bearian 13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


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.