Talk:FLAME clustering

Robotics Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics 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.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

conflict of interests && notability?

I admit that I am the same author who published this algorithm and edited this article, but I believe there is no "conflict of interests" here. In fact, wikipedia allows citing oneself as long as the material is notable and conforms to the content policies, as stated in http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:COI#Citing_oneself: "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies."

For its notability, besides the fact that it was published on one of the top journals in bioinformatics, one may be interest to have a look at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=7666144844126807477&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=gX0FTOfzKo2KNJLxsDs&sa=X&oi=science_links&resnum=3&ct=sl-citedby&ved=0CC4QzgIwAg

which indicates over 40 citations of the publication about the algorithm. This should be a sufficient proof of notability of the algorithm. So "conflict of interests && notability" isn't an issue here, this article should be remained. Phoolimin (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now the COI tag is removed.Phoolimin (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are by definition in WP:COI, and should not remove this tag yourself. This is not about the references, but the whole article should be double-checked by someone independent. Also understand that this doesn't mean the article is bad or must be deleted, it just means that it needs checked by someone independent. --87.174.118.95 (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This algorithm was published on a high level scientific journal, and had been undergo peer-review before publication. It has also been reviewed a number of times by other papers. These are independent checking. I guess what need to be checked in this article is if there is any bias on the performance of the algorithm or bias toward other algorithms. However this article does not mention anything like these. If you don't mind, I would kindly ask you to do such independent checking.Phoolimin (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]