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)[reply]

Indigo Cheminformatics Toolkit

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.