Deletion of AliView

Comment: as . Considering the relative abundance of sources for software, I generally expect some solid reliable independent secondary sources. Over here the research paper is not an independent source. The other research papers simply mention that they use the tool, but nothing about the software itself. I see this situation as having a credible claim of significance but not enough for notability. I understand that this is a tool in a niche field, but I still expect some non-trivial independent secondary coverage. (Tools/apps exist for every small field but we can't include them all per . Which is why I insist on some non-trivial independent secondary coverage. If a tool is really notable, it will not be a problem to find non-trivial coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: NB: I am the nominator) I appreciate the additions made since this AfD request; however IMO the same concerns still remain. Is there some claim of notability besides the number of citations, eg some detailed reasoning (ie meeting ) of why it was chosen in the cited studies over any of the other List of alignment visualization software|many alignment visualizers listed in Wikipedia? Bioinformatics software packages in general seem to have the issue {{u|Lemongirl942}} brings up: its existence alone doesn't merit a WP article. I'd like to see a large overhaul of the coverage of bioinformatics software on WP, for example cutting the aforementioned list to ''only'' bluelinked packages (which should ''also'' be able to demonstrate their own notability), but this is perhaps getting away from the current topic
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)