- 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. Daniel (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ExtraTrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – the source cited in the article (Pareja et al.) provides significant coverage, but it's not independent: the authors appear to be financially connected to the company. Everything else appears to be little more than trivial mentions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. WP:COMPBIO has a number of these stubs for databases with little notability, all added around the same time and tagged since 2011ish. Amkilpatrick (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article fails to establish why this DNA database is notable, and it is a mere one sentence in length.TH1980 (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2021 (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.