Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3DMet


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

3DMet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unclear, even after asking creator, how this in any way meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 14:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 14:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Notified WT:CHEMISTRY, Chembox -DePiep (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - no indication of notability, based entirely on a single primary reference. Somebody needs to care that it exists other than the people who created/run it, and there is no indication that is the case.  That it exists in not sufficient.  Unless it is referred to in, say, a review article detailing some of the available biochemical structure databases, it just isn't notable. Agricolae (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with previous comments.Rogermx (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The 3DMet database site itself is the RS. Some 126 other articles refer to it . Similar to most of . For example, PubChem is sourced by reference #1 to ... PubChem. - DePiep (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Other Wikipedia articles refer to it, because a template makes that easy. That doesn't count for so much. The article on PubChem has secondary sources from other organizations, in additions to links to PubChem itself. The journal article introducing 3DMet has only 10 citations on Google Scholar and 4 on Web of Science, compared to 1,015 GS citations and 683 by the publisher's database for the journal article introducing PubChem. This doesn't speak to 3DMet being widely influential. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The RL database is the source (as I wrote), not the wiki article. Nothing WP:CIRCULAR. And other articles do refer to it (i.e., to the database not the article) not because it is "easy" (?!), but because it is the source. Now since you have access to the 14 citations, please add them and we're done. Then, "not ... widely" is not an argument for deletion. -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I was unclear. There are not 14 sources. Everything listed in Web of Science is included in the Google Scholar list (the latter search service tends to be more radically inclusive, scraping PDFs from everywhere it can find them, and listing items regardless of peer review status). Nor do the sources really help to establish notability. "Review of natural product databases" and "Many InChis and quite some feat" give it barely a mention. Ditto "Public Databases of Plant Natural Products for Computational Drug Discovery". And the other article I can find through Web of Science is by the creators of 3DMet themselves, so it's not an independent source. I'm sorry, but there just isn't a lot here to work with. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, to establish notability you need reliable sources independent of the subject. You can cite the subjects themselves in a limited sense for definitional information, but not to establish that they are notable.  Likewise, reference to it on other Wikipedia pages is irrelevant, as it is very easy to throw a brief mention onto a peripherally-relevant page, even though it isn't really a noteworthy aspect of that subject.  Someone in the real world (independent of the people who run the database) needs to have cared enough to have produced something citable. Agricolae (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have notified Chembox, WT:CHEMISTRY and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology once more, clarifying that removal of this article would also imply removal of the data row from & asking for sources if one wants to save this all.
 * Depending on the responses (here or in article), if this generates activity I suggest (to the closing admin) this AfD be prolongued (relisted) to allow fleshing it out. -DePiep (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would that data row have to be removed if this article is deleted? Couldn't the "3DMet" in the infobox just be changed from a link to plain text? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It was unlinked until recently; here unlinked or redlinked is the same. We would link to 3DMet, without answering the question: "What is 3DMet?". When this AfD deletes, what is the meaning of the data (ie, the 3DMet ID for a certain compound) when the database itself is considered irrelevant (per this AfD)? If the ID were relevant for a certain compound, it would have ended up in a source (actual application of the database info). I also replied here. -DePiep (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * this AfD is independent by itself, but the consequence re removing datarow 3DMet altogether from  by now is talk-central here. - DePiep (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If this should not be an article, then I would suggest that it be put into Wikipedia: space to give a link target for the chembox. The chembox can link to it as it is useful. Whether it is notable is a different question. Wikipedia links to 3DMet do not prove notability. The KEGG database links to 3DMet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there some article into which this one can be merged? (Cf. how when journals are not quite notable, we redirect to the publisher, university or society that runs them.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing the problem with the template (or at least the same problem). People who know what 3DMet is don't need a link.  People who don't know what it is probably aren't going to care what its accession number for any given biochemical is anyhow - it is not our job to publicize an obscure database.  If it has to be defined for it to mean anything to people, I would question whether it is well enough known to merit inclusion in what is already an obnoxiously excessive infobox template anyhow.  All that is a separate question than the AfD, though.  If it is not notable, it is not notable.  Agricolae (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also repeatedly said that this AfD does not decide on inclusion/exclusion in the infobox Chembox. I also said it does imply deletion of this related data (i.e., at the talkpage). But I do not get your point re People who don't know what it [3DMet] is probably aren't going to care what its accession number for any given biochemical is anyhow -- that is the opposite of encyclopedic approach, and of the idea of linking. It also contradicts the strong & complete advocacy for deletion re notability, and then dropping that case completely'when related issue comes along. If the database is not worth an article and obscure (per this AfD), then how can its data be relevant for inclusion? -DePiep (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, I dcreated this article some time ago exactly to add the bluelink to . -DePiep (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "I also said it does imply deletion of this related data" &mdash; for the record, I'm still unconvinced that this is true. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Imply" as in: does logically incur. Final conclusion will&should be at Template talk:Chembox. (Where ever was I uncleare in this??). -DePiep (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But hey, editors should not get the idea, like: "the database 3DMet is not wiki-worthy, but let's keep the data in enwiki". -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm not seeing the reqired WP:RS to establish WP:N, either in the current article or in my own searching.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. One ref in the article and google not persuading me. Szzuk (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2018 (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.