Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigo Cheminformatics Toolkit


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Indigo Cheminformatics Toolkit

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Reference review:
 * Home page- Reliable source, not independent of the subject
 * Sourceforge- Reliable source, trivial
 * Three Google Newsgroups- Not reliable sources
 * Depth-First- Blog, not reliable source
 * So much to do, so little time- Blog, not reliable source
 * Google Code- Reliable source, trivial
 * Charlie’s path to dEAth- Blog, not reliable source
 * Noel O'Blog- Blog, not reliable source
 * Three presentations- Reliable sources, trivial

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * delete (looks like an advert) Tedickey (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not as spammy as a lot of these software articles, so I'm willing to believe it's not an out-and-out advertisement, but this software is certainly run-of-the-mill non-notable.  Like Joe, I can't find any significant coverage (and basically no insignificant coverage either, for that matter).   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 04:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure what Joe means by trivial, but the presentations are WP:PRIMARY sources. Pcap ping  02:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant trivial as in not significant coverage. I think that no presentations show notability for software. I didn't think of saying primary because I have only skimmed through that page. Joe Chill (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is pretty new software and insofar it doesn't meet our standards for inclusion. The only secondary coverage I was able to find were more blogs. Pcap ping  02:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.