Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPORCalc

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, and kudos to the creator for not being offended and taking the situation calmly. Sr 13 02:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPORCalc

Neologism coined by one chemistry department. Check out the single reference: it's just a term mentioned in one section of a research paper. It seems to be a scientific method used by one handful of postgrad students in their ongoing research. Possibly worthy of encyclopædic mention when this particular neologism is used and accepted by the wider scientific community: but not yet! EuroSong ^talk 08:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator EuroSong ^talk 08:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain/Discuss - The Substrate Product Occurence Ratio Calculator has been cited in many scientific articles and is a chemical infomatics method as described exactly on Wikipedia. The term SPORCalc is often used and referred to, in the literature. This page is linked from the OpenBabel project. The name maybe indeed an Neologism and indeed Wikipedia might not be an appropriate place to have the description of the method, but the above nominator could have the politeness to address the contact name referred to on the SPORCalc page. (SPORCalc was developed by a group of senior research scientists working for the University of Cambridge, WellcomeTrust, AstraZeneca and recently the Univeristy of Erlangen-Nuremberg ...and none were graduate students!)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.117.50 (talk)

Apologies if I did not know the exact origins. Anyway - if this term is "often used and referred to in literature", then it may indeed be eligible for Wikipedia inclusion, depending on the extent of the references. However, those references must be provided. It has to be shown that the term "SPORCalc" is notably used. Please do not take the deletion nomination as any kind of slight against the research carried out. It's just that we need independently verifiable references. EuroSong ^talk 01:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I come up with three hits on Google Scholar. That this term exists I concede, but that it is notable, in any degree of general use or has verifiability beyond its creators, remains to be proven. RGTraynor 13:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGTraynor & WP:NEO. Eusebeus 15:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the originator and author of SPORCalc and one of the people who maintained the page - feel free to delete it if you like, it's your Wiki :-) <e-mail address removed>
- It's nice to see an article's creator take a deletion discussion so calmly. By the way, it's not a good idea to post your e-mail address on Wikipedia like that -- if you want to sign a post, just type four tildes (these things: ~~~~). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, neologism that maybe just isn't notable yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete If it is widely used why do i find no papers on Medline? In GScholar, the hits are: 1 conference paper, 1 web posting, and two comprehensive reviews both of which refer to a 2005 paper that's not listed in the article, but is probably the key published work. I added it.DGG 02:52, 20 June 2007 (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.