Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile Molecular DataSheet

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. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Molecular DataSheet

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

I put a PROD on the article back in November 2010 because of lack of evidence of notability, but I removed the PROD when the author of the article asked for it to be reconsidered. I discussed the issues with the author, and he suggested that he would rewrite the article, so I left it. However, coming back to the article nearly three years later, I find that he never touched the article again, and there is still no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The article gives no independent sources, and searches produce the company's own web site, sites selling the software, pages briefly mentioning it, etc etc, but I did not manage to find a single independent source giving substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Non-notable, seems nothing more then a sales page about the software. Can't find widespread adoption/usage of it, and lack of any RS. Caffeyw (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any independent sources that were reliable and in depth for this product. The closest to an RS might be this peer-reviewed article by the software's creator, but the article is more about the underlying interface design than the product itself. Without multiple independent RS, the article fails notability guidelines. --Mark viking (talk) 21:13, 16 August 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.