Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PC GAMESS


 * 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. Additionally, discussion regarding a merge or renaming can continue on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 23:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

PC GAMESS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Note: a PROD was removed with the edit summary "I think that merge is a better option", but no indication where it might be merged. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge or weak keep. There are a surprisingly large number of these computational chemistry software packages (at least from the perspective of someone not a computational chemist!).  Several of them began as GAMESS (which, here, is basically a disambiguation page); it forked into GAMESS (UK) and GAMESS (US).  This software is a fork of the latter.  Some sources do consider them separately.  All three variants are given separate treatment in Springer's Handbook of Computational Chemistry, Volume 2, with a several page discussion of this family of programs (pp.614-617). But I'm uncertain whether there is sufficient material to justify all 3 (+disambiguation) articles, or whether we should merge this one back to GAMESS (US) or whether we should merge the whole lot of them back to GAMESS. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a general comment about all three programs, but first I want to say that this article, if kept, should be moved to Firefly (computer program) as I suggested on the talk page last year. The program is no longer called PC GAMESS. The three programs are quite different. While GAMESS (UK) and GAMESS (US) have a common origin, they are quite different. There are no similarities in the input or output files or the use of disk storage. Much of what the user sees in GAMESS (UK) comes from a program called ATMOL which was developed in the UK in the 1960s. GAMESS (US) shows none of this influence. Firefly is very much like GAMESS (US) as far as the user is concerned but a great deal of the code has been rewritten. In terms of notability all three have quite a few independent sources, but there will be more for GAMESS (US). Reference 1 in GAMESS (US) is just one of several books that discusses the program. All three of course are mentioned in research papers, but there are references in review articles and books. If a merge is needed, it could be to GAMESS which is currently a disambiguation page. It could be changed to an article on all three but with links to GAMESS (US) and GAMESS (UK) for more detail on those programs. I have no firm opinion at this point. I have worked extensively with both GAMESS (US) and GAMESS (UK) and have used Firefly. I am also an author of a program that is now distributed with GAMESS (US), so I may have a conflict of interest although my program is not mentioned in the article. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * merge and redirect to GAMESS (US), which is a clearly related piece of software. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisting comment: Consensus is clearly for a merger, but where to merge to? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep (moving to Firefly (computer program)). Sources exist, as noted above (e.g. the Handbook of Computational Chemistry). It might be useful to merge all three articles into one (GAMESS), but that question would be better handled with merge tags. Personally, I think the current set of three related articles is the best solution. -- 101.117.2.39 (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:10, 22 April 2014 (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.