Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chem4Word


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Chem4Word

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No WP:RS and I could not find anything additional. Fails WP:NPRODUCT. shoy (reactions) 13:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Not finding any independent sources that give this any depth in terms of notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Malinaccier ( talk ) 22:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the only notable independent source I can find on the topic - there's pages on the Microsoft website too for it, like this, of course. Whether these alone make it notable is up for debate... I've been unable to find any depth on how commonly used it is, either, but it does seem to be the only tool of this sort in Word. Keira  1996  03:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing just that one independent source, nothing really seems to stick out in terms of notability. If they were giving a decent overview it would be one thing, but it's more of a blip about going open source, and that's it. I'm still at the point that the program could be nested in the Microsoft Word article if any content passes WP:DUE, but that's an even lower bar than GNG in this caes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  12:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom's point.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Hardly a notable enough feature of Word to merit its own section in that article, and there doesn't seem to be a general article for Microsoft Word addins to merge this into. Source I provided earlier is, per, not itself enough to merit inclusion, and there doesn't seem to be anything further by a third party RS. Keira  1996  03:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the announcement of the beta release from 7 years ago. This is another. As a user of the product, I don't know why it hasn't gotten more press. It's definitely useful to chemists. I'll have to ask other American Chemical Society members to weigh in on this. kkolack 15:37, 16 August 2017 (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.