Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STR3DI32

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.--Wafulz 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STR3DI32

Article about a computer program created by the author of the program. Reads like an advertisement. Fails WP:N as it has no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Itub 12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as failing WP:NN and WP:COI as well, this article being just about the sole Wiki activity of User:Vgsbox. It reads like an article submitted to a scientific journal (and so possible copyvio), complete with the usual turgid passive voice padding. RGTraynor 15:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCould someone in chemistry see if the program has been used and written up by other than Prof. Box? I like the article, but in Google I see only a couple of hundred hits and they seem to be heavily populated by the writings of Prof. Box, the program's creator. It has been out there for over 20 years, so there has been time for its impact on the field to be evaluated. Edison 17:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google scholar gives 7 results, all of them from Prof. Box. --Itub 17:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is about both the earlier and the current name, & goes back to 1986, I checked in Web of Science, and did not find any additional ones using the word in either the title or the abstract. DGG 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I am a computational chemist, I know nothing about this program. I merely comment to User:Vgsbox that now is the time to add some references that are not to the home page of the code or to publications of the author and editor of this article. If that is done, it may be kept. If that is not done, it will be deleted. There are conflict of interest issues here and there are lack of independent sources issues. --Bduke 13:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. VSEPR theory still is, and will remain, the most important tool available to all chemists, at all levels, high school to research university, for the prediction of the structures of covalently bonded molecules. No other model has so far been developed that has the unbelmished success rate of VSEPR theory. There are very few, if any, programs that fully implement the principles of the VSEPR theory. Moreover, there are very few, if any, programs that implement VSEPR theory in a quantitaive fashion. STR3DI32 does this. Thus STR3DI32 is a valuable tool in chemistry and its existence should not be stifled. If the real question here concerns whether the program works or not, then I can only encourage you to look at the work that has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and to try it for yourself.

However, if the thrust is to deny readers the knowledge that this program exists, and to effectively censor this molecular modeling program because it is not molecular orbital based, then I cannot do anything except to remind us that "science" cannot thrive if any valid idea is not made available to all of science. History has shown this. There is a growing body of knowledge that expresses some unhappiness with the way current MO theory is applied in organic chemistry. This will not go away by censorship. Remember the history of benzene and phlogiston. Vgsbox 14:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue is certainly not one of censorship. We are not out to keep "The Truth" from the eyes of Wikipedia readers. The question is whether this apparently interesting and useful program has received substantial coverage by multiple independent and reliable sources, such as article by authors not tied in someway to the creator of the program, in such venues as refereed scientific journals. This is not a site to promote one's wares. Edison 19:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed, and certainly the creator can (or should, anyway) appreciate that as is the case with the peer-review system in place in science, Wikipedia operates on a system where it is immaterial what the creator writes about a subject, but quite vital what other people write about it. Surely the creator must know of others who have written in reliable sources about this model ... and if he cannot think of any himself, then this theory isn't so notable as all of that. Beyond that, the worst we can possibly do is scarcely to wipe this theory from the face of the Earth. All that will happen is that it will not be in Wikipedia. RGTraynor 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Feel free to delete the article. Vgsbox 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the way to go at this time is to delete the article but edit the paragraph in VSEPR theory on this program to be more NPOV and give an external link. It would then be still mentioned on WP. The lack of sources independent of Professor Box is the real concern, not as others have said, censorship. --Bduke 01:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar search found no secondary sources regarding this software: it found seven papers, but all were by the program's author himself. —David Eppstein 20:37, 21 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.