Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merck Molecular Force Field

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. RL0919 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merck Molecular Force Field[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotion article for none notable forcefield EvilxFish (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable (subject of multiple WP:RS)...no MMFF is included in many popular molecular molecular-modelling programs and various independent secondary-source articles likewise state that it is popular/important and worthy of being studied and evaluated (rather that just published for others to use). See for example doi:10.1186/s13321-014-0037-3 and arXiv:1705.04308. I don't see promotional/WP:NPOV content, but if so that would certainly merit being cleaned up. DMacks (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are saying is correct then the article should be kept, note both of those references are primary though. I found a few forcefield pages that I believed were promotions (one of which has already been speedy deleted) based on their citations (usually all papers with a recurring author or lacking completely). I may have made a mistake in my assessment of this one. EvilxFish (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, second-person (independent), but not "a review article on the topic" (WP:SECONDARY). DMacks (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm really out of my element on this particular flavor of chemistry topic, but there's clearly discussion of the Merck Molecular Force Field in quite a few book-format chemistry works in addition to scads of journal hits. This Kluwer Academic computational chemistry textbook goes so far to call MMFF "popular" (as of 2004, at least), and frankly that's probably good enough evidence as any. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An easy keep on the basis that other researchers not associated with Halgren or his affiliation have written on the subject. For instance both [1] and [2] have MMFF in the paper's title. Halgren gets a decent number of cites for his papers on this subject. In particular this paper has 4,341 citations according to scholar. SpinningSpark 07:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Promo can be cut out. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2019 (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.