Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoLocalizer Pro Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CoLocalizer_Pro

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. All of the "keep" !votes are from confirmed sockpuppets. JohnCD (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CoLocalizer Pro (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)

Spammy article about a software package. I've checked six of the papers cited at the end of the Overview section, and they only contain passing mentions of the software ("we used Colocalizer Pro"). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As a contributor to this article (mainly about references) I found a note that the article is being considered for deletion. I agree that it contained portions that sounded like advertisement supposedly contributed by others. It is also true that it contained references which only mentioned the use of the software without actually providing any useful information (partially I am to blame).

Therefore, I improved the article. I edited it to remove the content that sounded like advertisement. Ten irrelevant papers were deleted. Deleting this article would be a mistake, because it describes the software which is used by many researchers in the medico-biological field, some of them are my students who actually introduced me to it. References to the remaining sources (Nature Protocols, Current Protocols in Cell Biology) are very reliable and trusted. Importantly, the article itself and the subject it describes (colocalization in fluorescence microscopy have good coverage across Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/ImageJ, https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Colocalization https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Fluorescence https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Fluorescence_in_the_life_sciences In my opinion, the article is a definite keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow line987 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC) — Yellow line987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I note that many of the references are to papers cowritten by Vadim Zinchuk and/or Olga Grossenbacher, who happen to be the authors of CoLocalizer Pro. To demonstrate notability we need independent coverage of the software itself, not just of results that were obtained with the help of the software. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference of Zinchuk et al was replaced by a more independent one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow line987 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The reference that you added is to a source in which the sum total of the content about this article's subject is the sentence, "MOC is implemented in image analysis software packages, such as Colocalizer Pro, Image-Pro, Imaris, and Volocity and can be implemented in ImageJ via the JACoP plugin." This is far from the kind of significant coverage needed to demonstrate notability. Once again, we need independent reliable sources that actually say something significant about this software, rather than mentioning it along with three others in a single sentence. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have looked for independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of this topic and come up blank and, more importantly, Yellow line987, who seems to know something about this field, has also been unable to offer any such sources. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nothing spammy about it, OK written and probably has a dedicated readership. The problem was that some contributors probably trying to get some publicity for their published papers added them to the reference list. Just deleted references about use without clear indication of functionality applications. Good thing about this article is that described software, unlike many other scientific commercial packages, is available for free evaluation. Added a sentence that software can be evaluated freely. “The software is available for free evaluation”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adodedudid (talk • contribs) 07:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC) — Adodedudid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• It seems that I have to repeat myself yet again. To show notability we need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this software. A bare acknowledgement that it exists or was used for a piece of research is not significant coverage. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unfortunately I couldn't find anything. Book searches brought a lot of results but no preview for most, so I'm not able to see what is said. If this software has been analyzed in sources like this [2] [3] then I would change my mind —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wikimandia: GBooks says "no results found for CoLocalizer" for both books. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Added independent references. ^[1][2] The comment above that “sources that have significant coverage of this topic and come up blank” has no any relation to the article itself. Please be fair.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepy-molly (talk • contribs) 05:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC) — Sleepy-molly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• The first of those references is to a paper written by the authors of CoLocalizer Pro, and the second mentions it once in a parenthetical aside: "Estimating colocalization requires specialized algorithms (e.g., CoLocalizer Pro software) executed by computer software." Why do you continually argue that sources are independent and have significant coverage of the subject when they obviously do not? I certainly wouldn't consider using software from anyone who had such a poor grasp of simple logic, and most people reading this will assume that you are one of or that you represent the authors of this software, so by arguing in this way you are damaging your reputation and your potential sales. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I note that you removed a {{Failed verification}} template that I placed against a reference that claims that the source shows that this software has been evaluated, but that in fact mentions nothing whatsoever about such evaluation. Such actions will lead to people respecting you even less than they may do already on the basis of your conduct in this discussion. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer. The accounts listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/7yPDx4 are  Confirmed. At best, only one of their !votes here should be counted.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep @82.9.185.151: your inflamed demands about independent citation sources is either trolling or incompetence (or perhaps even both). If you are trying to judge an article about scientific software, you must know that there is no better way to independently evaluate, as well as endorse, it than to publish data obtained with its help in high impact factor journals. This article cites Nature and Cell, among others, as sources where reports that used Colocalizer pro software were published. This is as high as it can get with scientific publications, top of tops in science. There is no doubts that authors of the papers presented detailed protocols of procedures using this software (which can be checked in presented links and likely say a lot to specialists) and that the independent referees of cited journals thoroughly evaluated the results before publication. If you don’t understand it, you shouldn’t participate in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandraEW (talk • contribs) 08:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — SandraEW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Striking vote by yet another sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Even though the post above has been struck (stricken?) I still think that there is a potentially valid point that needs to be responded to. If it was the case that this software had been widely used by researchers other than its authors to produce peer reviewed papers I would accept that we should have an article about it. The problem is that neither of the independent sources claimed to show such use actually does. Neither the Dunn et al. nor the Jensen paper even says that they used this software, but they simply mention it as an example of software that is available in this area, and the former lists it among several others. The other sources in the article are either by the authors of this software or are used to support general statements about colocalization rather than about CoLocalizer Pro. I am certainly not trolling, but will leave any judgement of my competence to others. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of third-party refs (independent in-depth review articles) to demonstrate notability. Attempts to prove notability via a list of cites to those who use this product, where the ref essentially just states that this product was used, seem like a form of WP:OR akin to google hit-counting (as opposed to an independent review that says that it is widely used or novel/important/popular in its genre--similar to Wikipedia:Notability (software)). DMacks (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2015 (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.