This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Molecular Biology: MCB This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The following was copied from my talk page (difs [1]). It's about issues with the Cellosaurus page so it belongs on the Cellosaurus talk page. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I answered your comments on the COI page.

In term of the Cellosaurus page itself: I left the "COI" tag which is objectively true, but took away the 2 other tags as: For "primary" I already added 2 secondary sources and can add many more if you wish as the number of places/articles where the Cellosaurus is described is increasing excponentially (of all the resouces I created this is the one with the highest growth rate, primarily because there is no other independant (of vendors) data bases on cell lines).

For "notability": if you wish I can send you the Google Analytic statistics, but in 2 years on the ExPASy server it already reached 2 million pages (see tweet below) and in term of the pageviews on Wikipedia the Cellosaurus page is seen an average of 174 times per month since its creation. Nothing comparable to popular pages, but if I compare it to that of the individual cell lines pages that exist in Wikipedia, it is in the same ball park. So I am not sure what is your criteria for notable in term of pages describing scientific resources. I checked for PROSITE which I established in 1988 and of course its 4-5x times higher but that's a resource used for already 30 years!! And in term of papers citing Cellosaurus entries this is becoming enormous as it the resource used for cell lines identification in many journal in the last year. At the latest count there were already >1'500 papers with Cellosaurus RRIDs.

• https://twitter.com/Cellosaurus/status/987301545195819009
• https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2016-05&end=2018-06&pages=Cellosaurus

Amb sib (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary". The two links you added are primary listing so don't do anything about the primary issue.

"Notability". Don't bother sending anyone the Google Analytic statistics. Instead read about notability. Independent reliables sources that discuss cellosaurus.

Given your conflict of interest you are not the one who should be removing these maintenance tags. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability issues:

Here is small list collated in 10 minutes of independant publications, software tools, resources that cite the Cellosaurus:

• [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

I can go on like that with hundreds of sites. But it seems to me that you do not seem to understand what notability means in term of scientific research.

If you do a search of the subset of literature that is open access and indexed in PubMed central and you do a search on:

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=%22CVCL_%22+AND+%22cell+line%22

Note: "CVCL_" is the prefix of the Cellosaurus accession numbers.

You will see that there are alreasy 362 publications that make use of the Cellosaurus. This is an enormous number for a resources that is only available online for about 2.5 years.

Amb sib (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a lot of primary references. Amb sib, is the topic discussed in any review papers (e.g. discussing its accuracy or impact on the field)? I found this one: [22] which is pretty useful to support notability. The issue with proving notability for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, is that it relies heavily on secondary courses to assert notability for a subject. Primary sources can't really be used to support notability, since editors won't know the benchmarks and comparisons to interpret whether that primary data sufficiently supports significance (e.g. CVCL_ usage or that the main Cellosuarus paper has been cited 7 times). So what Duffbeerforme is assessing is whether there are other sources that can be relied upon to assert that it is notable, in this case reviews or news articles. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its not yet discussed in review papers as it is too young to figure in them. The paper you site is more an example of the use by a research group of the resource like many other that I cited above but then these are not reviews per se. I am not sure a video made by a company counts as a review, but if it is than the following video describes the Cellosaurus starting at around 12' and ending at 13'. And thanks a lot for your comments. Amb sib (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That video, that's you talking about Cellosaurus, not independent. Your comments, "So I am not sure what is your criteria for notable" and "you do not seem to understand what notability means in term of scientific research". Once again, read about notability. You don't know what I do or do not understand about what notability means in term of scientific research. This is Wikipedia, not a scientific journal. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]