Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DelPhi (software)

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. v/r - T P 03:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DelPhi (software)

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

Specialised piece of software of interest to a very small number of people. No attempt made to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability is presented so this fails WP:N. No citations are given to learn more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inherent notability to science topics. Fotaun (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Somewhat challenging target to search for, what with conflating hits from the Delphi method, the Delphi online service provider/forum host, and Delphi Object Pascal. However, the software was the subject of a review in BMC Biophysics, and it gets at least some mention and commentary elsewhere. Springer's Handbook of Computational Chemistry describes it as widely used. Other sources compare it to competing products; I'm reasonably certain that there's more than enough material out there to support an article. That is is a specialized product need not be a barrier to inclusion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – fairly widely used software package outside of the group that developed it (Barry Honig). Mentioned in a number of independent publications (see PubMed search). Boghog (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. With the caveat that someone should watch the article to make sure that it doesn't become a copy-paste/mirror of the current developer's group page, as had happened previously. I'm not sure what to say about current/future growth of the software, since it seems to have been handed off from Honig's lab, to a group at Clemson University. It's been several releases since any real functionality has been added, so I'm not sure if they have plans to develop it further or are simply mirroring the software and documentation, and providing minor bug fixes? (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 13:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This program is still under active development in our lab and will likely see several future revisions that add significant features to the program. I would also like to add some brief notes about the other variations of DelPhi developed in our lab as well - these have been published in BMC BioPhysics and the Journal of Computational Chemistry so it is not WP:OR. Nwilddev (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2013 (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.