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 (nominator withdrew). --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS/Draw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This one-line article does not suggest that its topic, a software program, is notable; it's virtually orphaned and not even mentioned, let alone linked, in the article for the company that makes it. Prod was removed on the basis of the reference, which appears to be a review in a journal of this and three similar programs. Propaniac (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. By the way, the provided ref is useless. You have to purchase the article in which ISIS is mentioned before you can read or check it. Pay-per-Verification, a nice new concept?    SIS  21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article may well deserve deletion, but you are very much mistaken on the WP:V point. Payment is only required for online access to the journal in question, Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences was a printed journal (in changed name in 2004[1]) that was and still is available in many libraries in printed form free of charge (for instance, I checked and my university library has it). There is no requirement in WP:V for a reference to be accessible electronically (for free or for fee), and printed sources are perfectly acceptable. In fact, most print newspapers and other print publications require payment for online viewing of their non-recent issues. This case is no different and the reference is no less valid. Nsk92 (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that (obviously) and thanks for the explanation. I'll strike my remark.    SIS  01:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 00:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs to be expanded but few quick google searches show that the topic is notable. Substantial coverage in newsmedia: 63 hits in googlenews, some with specific and detailed coverage, e.g.[2][3]. Also, 105 hits in googlebooks[4], most with nontrivial coverage a few with detailed and specific coverage, e.g.[5][6]. GoogleScholar gives 803 hits[7]. Fairly clear that the topic passes WP:N. The program appears to have been replaced by Symyx Draw 3.1 according to this[8]. It may be obsolete but nevertheless notable. Nsk92 (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources found by Nsk92. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a notable program in its time. As an example, [9] describes its installation at Yale, & I think we had it at Princeton too. Used as auxiliary software for a major database [10]. I can well understand not recognizing the title, but not doing even the most rudimentary search? DGG (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, one of the molecule editors commonly used by professional chemists. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very well known in the field of chemistry and chemoinformatics, and mentioned by many sources as pointed out above. --Itub (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if someone wants to close this early. I'm satisfied that the topic itself is notable enough, but maybe someone could have added some of this content to the article in the two and a half years that it's sat there as a one-line stub? Propaniac (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2008 (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.