Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GROMOS


 * 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 Keep (NAC) Rotten regard 03:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

GROMOS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable software. No independent refs, since all have van Gunsteren as an author (presumably they are involved with the software). No evidence of in depth independent coverage (as required by the WP:GNG) in google. Many people associated with the software appear to be from non-English-speaking countries, so there are possibly non-English refs, but I can't find them. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * False information. Stuartyeates massively nominates articles for removal without cause.P99am (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's very close to the claims you made when you removed the notability tag from the article. I look forward to your explanation of exactly which parts of what I've said are false. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect Google scholar shows articles mentioning GROMOS independent of the van Gunsteren, for instance, and the review article . Are these enough for notability? Possibly. If not, however, GROMACS, which is notable, is derived from GROMOS and it appears that researchers speak of GROMOS force fields even if they do not use the program. If this article fails notability, some subset could be merged into the GROMACS article history section. Failing that, a redirect to GROMACS would be appropriate. Mark viking (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that a merge and redirect to GROMACS seems like a good option, especially since GROMACS has a New York Times article, which is a solid plank of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm going to go with keep here, because science. We have thousands of articles about barely or non-notable computer applications, people show up to their AfDs to defend them tooth and nail, and here we have a piece of scientific software that seems to be widely used as per the sources given there, and we want to nuke it? I'd say this is certainly notable and encyclopedic. § FreeRangeFrog 01:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * keep Although a merge may also be acceptable, the content should be kept. While no expert myself, I read the article as not about "non-notable software" as stated in the Nom. Rather, it details a software simulation package in conjunction with details on the atomic force field phenomenon/technique the software simulates. Further, it would seem that this phenomenon/technique has been extensively discussed in academic journals including [Here]. Celtechm (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference you give appears to have 'van Gunsteren' as an author, like every other reference listed here. A matching name is found on the contact page for the software. These are not independent reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding Details so after spending FAR more time that I cared to tracking down more details, it seems that van Gunsteren is an (almost certainly notable) academic per [his bio] and that the software described in this article actually is commercially licensed. Given the narrow scope of this S/W, the academic nature of the work, the fact that the S/W hasn't been released as a new revision in 16 years, and the small licensing fees listed on their site, I think it is disingenuous to consider [this academic group] a commercial software organization and exclude all the academic work of its founder based upon his association to the project, but so be it. There are some references out there that don't cite van Gunsteren like [here], but I fall back upon WP:Common and believe the @800 citations of each of the top three scholar hits for papers written on the subject prove that it is worth retaining. Celtechm (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I am rather baffled why someone would think that being mentioned in more than nearly 800 scholarly publications is not enough to meet WP:GNG.TR 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to read WP:GOOGLEHITS as to why that is an argument to avoid. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We're talking about citations in academic papers here, not web search results. I would encourage you to read the final sentence of WP:GOOGLEHITS. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge See CHARMM as an example of the exact same situation: a notable MD force field and notable software package that implements it having the same name. Deletion is completely uncalled for here, but the argument for keeping them distinct seems weak in light of CHARMM. Jeff.science (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  00:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep, no doubt. GROMOS is not as widely spread as AMBER or CHARMM however, it is a very well known package. I would put it in the top ten of most famous. P99am (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This really shouldn't have been nominated. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:00, 5 December 2012 (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.