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. Based on Dylnuge's deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Comparison of DNA melting prediction software

Comparison of DNA melting prediction software (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

This list has the same problems as the list about to be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins (2nd nomination) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per the same argument I made at the Excel add-ins AfD mentioned above. Niche topic where none of the software itself is notable. It seems extremely unlikely to me that pages like this can remain accurate and neutral over time; even choosing what products to include in the comparison or what to compare them by is WP:SYNTH (and it's easy for someone to pick things that tilt towards their favored product), and already here we see that the information is incomplete for some products and generally unsourced. Granted, "it's hard to maintain this" isn't exactly a policy-driven argument (those would be WP:NOTDIRECTORY/ WP:NOTGUIDE and the notability argument), but it strikes me as important in this case—if someone can't rely on a page like this to be a current, accurate, complete, and neutral comparison, why have it? Dylnuge ^{( Talk • Edits)} 01:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep Came across an attempt to remove MQTT protocol comparison page and found this. Saying it a niche is nosense. Information is niche by its very definition. Its all specialised. The argument that hard to maintain is fallacious as well. It took me 10 mins to determine that lots of these are still active development, many of have moved off of legacy platforms and many of them have a large community. Lastly, as being ultra-specialised, at the extreme end of the scale is ideal for Wikipedia. Is is absolutly enclyclopedic knowledge. I'm sad that you managed to remove and Excel add-on comparison article. A product that used from between 400-600million people on a semi-regular basis. One of the most used products in history, which makes everything is use, as being notable. Changed from Keep to Strong Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep ( talk • contribs)

  Fair enough, "niche" is imprecise language and not a policy argument. Notable is a policy argument, though, and you didn't present any counter-claim that this is notable when it's a list of things that all themselves appear to fail notability (also, not a single argument in the Excel add-ons AfD claimed Excel wasn't notable). Dylnuge ^{( Talk • Edits)} 00:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Dylnuge: You say they are not notable, when your a software engineer. Why are they not notable? The software here is so strange and unique. Also all of these are still under development, and per long-establish consensus any software that is under active development, gets a article. These could have articles if somebody wanted to do create them. I think like this that so far outside the mainstream is notable. scope_creep ^Talk 00:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

To quickly clarify (re: my job), I make no claim to professional expertise on this subject; I work on networking and data storage infrastructure. I'm not a biologist or biochemist (I assume the target users of DNA melting prediction software), I've never used such software, I know nothing about it. So, lacking that expertise, I went ahead and searched for it—and wow is it hard to find any information about what this even is. Almost all the results are either commercial marketing websites for one of these products or whitepapers on one. And then there's this page. I spent a while searching—I tend to think I'm pretty good at my WP:BEFORE (or before-voting) searching—and as far as I can tell, DNA melting prediction software doesn't meet GNG. I can't find a single reliable independent secondary source describing the topic.

Now, as for Comparison of DNA melting prediction software, if none of the specific programs are notable, there's no WP:LSC to create a notable list. But if the topic that the thing is a list of isn't even notable to begin with, I don't even need to really make that argument. If you have sources that demonstrate the notability of DNA melting prediction software, please share them! I am always open to changing my vote when new evidence is presented!

On the other hand, per long-establish consensus any software that is under active development, gets a article is frankly completely untrue. WP:NSOFT are the guidelines around software notability. Like almost all notability guidelines, it looks at independent coverage in reliable sources. "Active development" isn't on there. I'm a bit confused by this statement; it seems to me that you're implying that almost every program in existence should have a Wikipedia article, which feels unlikely. Dylnuge ^{( Talk • Edits)} 01:51, 5 November 2022 (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.