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. Sandstein 09:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clust[edit]

Clust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails notability - just published, no citations, self-added: obvious WP:COI. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binarization of consensus partition matrices. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for trying to save Wikipedia from biased articles or articles with no sufficient reliable sources.

However, although peer-reviewed publication just published in Genome Biology but the method and a pre-print publication have been around for more than a year with a user-base (e.g. number of users of the github version and the size of publicity on social media such as Twitter). The article is written from a neutral point of view. If any WP:COI signs of bias appear in the article, please point them out to be edited by whoever has expertise in gene expression clustering in general or in using this particular algorithm in particular. If still in doubt, you can always keep a warning sign at the top of the article inviting experts and expert users to edit as long as Wikipedia editors think the article is not 100% written from a neutral point of view. I cannot see how this article warrants complete deletion. Basel1988 (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Basel1988 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication of notability for this software from any sources I've looked for or found in the article. Citing the original paper and a couple primary papers that used it will never satisfy GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all the above. The only citation to the article topic is the paper itself; the other citations are just supporting secondary statements and don't seem to mention this algorithm. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. The subject does not meet the criteria for verifiable notability. (It appears that the whole contested article is but a synopsis of this paper, which is practically the article's exclusive source. But Wikipedia is not a depository of scientific papers.) -The Gnome (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2018 (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.