Talk:CambridgeSoft

revision from Perkin Elmer redirect
CambridgeSoft at its peak employed over 150 people and was one of the early leaders in chemistry software. There's certainly a lot more history that could be added here - including inventions, contributions, etc. The Perkin Elmer sale is noted in the article, but I don't see what service it does to do a redirect which loses the history of the company. I added a few other historical elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.151.103 (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability
I really don't see what the problem is here. The article clearly states what the company is notable for, and it appears to be accurate.

Almost 4 million Google hits, and while the first page are mainly their own sites, it says something that their own sites are top of that long a list. Other sites listed seem quite adequate to establish that this is a notable organisation, and that ChemDraw in particular is a notable product, and even if they went bust tomorrow (I have no reason to suspect they will, that's an even if) they'd remain notable purely for the contribution they have made to chemical engineering software (and possibly for other reasons as well but that's enough).

It would be good to expand the stub like all stubs, but I don't think this (inaccurate) notice helps at all. Comments welcome, and in the absence of any I'll remove the notice in a few days. Andrewa 15:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
See Talk:ChemDraw. Andrewa 21:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Independent?
I haven't followed the news about CambridgeSoft, the article PerkinElmer agrees to buy CambridgeSoft (boston.com, March 2011, accessed 2011-06-20) suggests that the phrase "&hellip;and has since remained independent" is no longer true. Grunkhead (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)