Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMemory Animation 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. Sandstein 17:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SMemory Animation Software

NN software. Major part of the article is chemistry that can be found in other articles. --The Firewall 20:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is meant to describe the s-memory software similar to other software pages listed on Molecular modelling, perhaps it should be more specific? Edguy99 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other software here are either directly linked to their homepage or have an article with content about the software, for example MOPAC.

My concern is that everything below the contents box in this article is chemistry. The article should be about the software, not a How-To/manual for using it, if it was intended to be that. I also doubt if its notable enough to have a page.--The Firewall 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is introducing the idea of the dots that are used as attraction points to draw the structures together, then goes through from simple to more complex molecules how that works all the way up to the use of nitrogen. Would less examples and more to the point work? Edguy99 (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, this is a restoration on material that was deleted after this discussion at AfD. Second, the software is not notable. Third, most of these diagrams are misleading and give an inaccurate picture of molecules. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The work is a clever artistry but it has no useful connection to the real world of chemistry. The work is also a form of research. And it is misleading. The strange thing is that constructing these diagrams requires skill, but the result is garbage. Also irritating that we went through this process previously and I guess that this editor will persist and merits some sort of warning.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the merits of this software (we can and do have articles on "bad" software), there are no references to support its notability. The electronic book referenced in the article doesn't mention this software. VG ☎ 23:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This software is notable and of considerable use to anyone wanting to join bigger collections of molecules together. It displays .pdb (protein data base) format files in the traditional sense, but many other popular programs such as JMOL that just allow you to view and manipulate 1 molecule. Here you can manipulate several molecules on the same page and manipulate them into bigger and bigger structures of molecules through special 3-D editing capabilities.

The dots are not misleading as they help the user connect multiple complexes of molecules together into groups. The dots can be rearranged by the user or more can be added to allow you to model any molecules orbital structure. Think of it as using VP2000 (as I understand how it works) to find the orbitals, and then marking the centers (where possible) with a dot.

I do see better how this section is organized and should have reviewed pages like MOPAC more carefully before posting, sorry about irritating anyone Edguy99 (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VP2000? Do you mean VB2000? --Bduke (Discussion) 20:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Edguy99's page is basically a copy of this article. VG ☎ 16:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. See Wikipedia:Notability to see what we mean by notable. This is basically another attempt at promoting this product and these ideas after the deletion of 3D Lewis Structure from the same author. --Itub (talk) 05:55, 23 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.