Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molecular computational identification


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes  02:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Molecular computational identification

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Google returns no obvious sources for this topic by this name. This article has had almost no content since 2006. The one source cited is a dead link and I cannot find the article archived on the publishers' own website.

No evidence is available that this concept meets WP:GNG.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  16:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 00:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * keep GScholar shows 191 cites for the seminal paper, as well as plenty of other papers. That said, I'm not convinced that the current stubby description is accurate. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... okay, I see this in gscholar, and it has 191 cites.
 * Now we have a source and a lead on other sources. I am also not sure that anything about this article matches that or other sources.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now we have a source and a lead on other sources. I am also not sure that anything about this article matches that or other sources.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Deletion discussions ought really to confine themselves to whether the subject is notable, not how good the content written about it is at the present moment. In this case it's shoddy. But it takes no time to find articles like this, this, this, this, and this, this which suggests it probably noteworthy. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm finding some reviews that cite the seminal paper, so it passes my initial science sniff test at least. This may only amount to a stub though at best since a few of those seem to be minor mention. Maybe it's a stub at best, but I'm not entirely opposed to deletion either unless someone can show a source that has something more solid than passing mention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep This is a GF AFD since the article is of poor quality to the point that retention is right on the line. However, based on the rationale advanced by Kingofaces43, I think it is just over the edge. Chetsford (talk) 18:56, 18 March 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.