Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moscito (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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moscito (software)

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

Non-notable software. Small academic project. No evidence of awards. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. There is a small chance there are sources in German, but there's no German language wikipedia entry and I've exhausted my German skills. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuartyeates massively puts the articles to deletion or declares it as not notable. The fact that this is done without consideration of the matter can be seen on the example of the AMBER force field which is one of the most famous and widely-used in chemistry and which the Stuartyeates declares as not notable. I propose to cancel all Stuartyeates editions and ban him.P99am (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are presumably talking about this edit, which was solely based upon the state of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Afd discussions are for the discussion of the merits of a specific article, and are not the place to discuss or propose user restrictions. If you have a problem, try discussing it with the user on his talk page, and failing that, making use of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Dialectric (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Moscito is known program. P99am (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fairly weak argument (WP:AADD). Some sources to back up that claim would help strengthen your argument, as claiming it's well known without any support behind it weakens your argument. (X! · talk) · @240 · 04:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to vote, but I will provide some research. The first two GHits are both WP; this is GHit 2, and after GHit 2, all the hits on "Moscito" are related to GHit 1 (a bridge, as in the card game, system). However, I figured there should be some Scholar hits (this is used for science, after all) as it would need to be referenced in papers, and I got 262 hits. However, I think most of them are referencing not the software, but the research in the first research article, which used it (which says more about the research than the software). I got some hits on Google Patents as well for references to the User Manual (and thereby some use in there, I think). However, WP:PATENTS indicates that patents are both WP:SELFPUB and primary sources. Therefore, while I'm leaning towards no real assertion of notability based on those findings, I think this might need some more knowledgeable eyes from a relevant WikiProject member. MSJapan (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching for '"moscito" molecular' on Google Scholar garners 87 hits. Most of the peer-reviewed hits are not about Moscito, but use the program for their molecular dynamics simulations, for example, [1] [2], and [3]. I have no recommendation, because I am unsure whether these count as secondary sources. It seems to me that if a researcher is going to use a program as the basis for their own research and report on it in a paper, that paper is a secondary source for the program and because it is peer-reviewed, it is considered reliable. If so, there are numerous secondary sources and the article should be kept. If not, I have not found any independent secondary sources discussing the Moscito program itself. Mark viking (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes these are secondary sources. Yes these are independent (assuming that the software author and paper author have no connection). The problem is depth of coverage, the sources need to ' address the subject directly in detail' as per WP:GNG. My reading is that these don't. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources supporting that the program is notable. Smells like there's some WP:COI issues, too. 1292simon (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2012 (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.