Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  09:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheminformatics toolkits

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Advertising, a list of all most all non-notable toolkits (notable as defined as having its own article) The Banner  talk 14:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve, non notable list members can be removed. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a product directory. Agricolae (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp  💬  18:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep notable is not defined by having its own article (WP:LISTN. Christian75 (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for now The notes section indicates some of the entries are notable enough to be listed (in agreement with @Christian75 on that one). However, notability was only established by that means on a few of them. The article needs to fill out the notes section to other publications which discuss these toolkits as a means of establishing the notability of each entry. Ones with no references are not notable and should be deleted, IMO.Footlessmouse (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Paul Carpenter and Christian75. It could seriously be questioned whether nominators qualification "Advertising" meets WP:AGF, especially when the reason for nominating is so poor. Eissink (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC).
 * See also Talk:Cheminformatics_toolkits for a note on the unacceptable editing of the nominator. Eissink (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC).
 * Ah, here we see the classic action of Eissink. If he does not get what he wants, he start throwing personal attacks. In fact, I was anticipating the keeping of the article and comply to the wishes of Paul Carpenter and others (a wish you supported): Keep and improve, non notable list members can be removed. But then it should be clear that the listed items must be notable. The Banner  talk 14:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't make the listed items notable by adding "notable" to the definition. If you don't understand that, it is no surprise that you perceive opposition to your edit as a personal attack. Eissink (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC).
 * Ever heard of a selection criterion? The Banner  talk 19:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have found a source that describes and defines 'notability' as a selection criterion for cheminformatics toolkits, you would need to add that source (and preferably the definition also) to the article. It would perhaps explain why you redlinked all existing items on the list., although it would also bring the question as to why you decide to maintain your initial viewpoint that those toolkits are "all most all non-notable" and indeed to why you did not change your opinion on the deletion request as such, since your entire argument would then be gone. [striking these lines, after edit conflict, since user worded the intention to comply. So please now provide us your source. Eissink (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC).
 * The linking was to give an insight of how many articles had actually an article (not too many). And no, I do not have to give a source of the notability as a selection criterion. It is widely used as such. The Banner  talk 22:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly, it still seems to me that you confuse the notability of the list items with the definition of the subject, which would of course be shameful beyond words – especially given your stubborn reverts of my reasoned undoing – because it would show a lack of knowledge of even the very basics of logic (and thus question the more why, for instance, you keep wanting to delete articles on subjects that you don't master). But maybe I'm wrong, which you can easily show by providing us a source that says that "notability" is an essential, or at least reasonable part of the definition of cheminformatics toolkits. If you cannot do so, I will feel free to remove the word 'notable' again, to avoid a trip to ANI. Eissink (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC).
 * No, your edit war was based on nothing. And I stop playing your games, as you clearly are unable to distinguish between notability of a subject and notability as a selection criterion of a list. Bye. The Banner  talk 08:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed the word. Do yourself a favor and don't revert. Eissink (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC).
 * I have reinstated the selection criterion. Stop editwarring. The Banner  talk</i> 11:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe this is really happening. Eissink (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC).
 * I am not surprised that you do not understand the concept of a selection criterion and started crying on WP:AN/I. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.