Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling Rain Genomics

:{{la|Falling Rain Genomics}} ([{{fullurl:Falling Rain Genomics|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling Rain Genomics}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Contested prod. Article has one link toa book spending a paragraph on thiswebsite. Apart from that, all I was able to find from reliable sources are a few that acknowledged using it, but nothing else about the website. This Google News search using FallingRain (the alternative name for FR Genomics) yields nothing of value[http://news.google.com/archivesearch?tab=sn&hl=en&lr=&q=%22FallingRain%22&ie=UTF-8]. The site is probably useful in some circumstances (and very unreliable in other ones), but usefulness is not a reason to keep an article. Fram (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete The article suffers from a lack of a link to www.fallingrain.com ; that aside, the question is whether site this has attracted attention, and if a search doesn't confirm that it has, I don't see a reason for keeping it. While, at first, the google search suggests that there are 134,000 ghits it actually works out to 216 . I gave the site a try, and to me it appears difficult to navigate. Once the problems are worked out, it may be more useful as a service. Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

::I'm actually weakening an argument for deletion here, but your Google count of 216 is a typical google count error. Google only gives the number of distinct pages in the first 1,000 results, not in all 134,000. Similarly, Wikipedia also only has about 430 distinct hits if you scroll to the end of the Google search results. Google believes apparently that no one goes looking beyond 1,000 hits, which is often very annoying. Fram (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

::::: I stand corrected, and I appreciate the clarification. I remember once when I was citing ghits in support of keeping an article, an editor called me a liar because I hadn't gone to the end to get the "true" number. Up until now, I wasn't sure why there were different numbers, and that's extremely helpful. I remain unpersuaded by the article itself about how much fallingrain is actually used. Mandsford (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep if only by virtue of the fact that a search of "falling rain genomics" site:wikipedia.org returns 14,500 hits. There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that use Falling Rain's data. The site is not terribly easy to navigate, but that alone does not disqualify listing. Horologium (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Google hits are not a show of notability. Reliable sources are. Corvus cornix_talk 18:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak no consensus all this talk about usefulness of the site and its navigability is as if we use subjective original research to determine notability. That's just maddening. And Ghits are not the sole arbiter of notability, either. If we do not have the time or inclination to scrutinize this article under the notability criteria, let's just keep it by default until we do. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:40, 28 September 2008 (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.