Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChemSpider

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. Sr 13 00:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChemSpider

Web site established March this year, which has no third party sources and doesn't appear to have won any awards. Searching using google news archive and scholar produces no results. Accordingly, the article fails WP:WEB. Addhoc 10:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editors should be aware of a related discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#possible COI at Chemspider. Physchim62 (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looked over the ChemSpider page, based upon what i saw it actually compliments Wikipedia seeing how I can perform a structural search on ChemSpider to find Wikipedia records, Very Nice... I am for keeping it providing the following: 1. It remains Open Access and free to use. 2. It does not become cluttered with advertisements. 3. Wikipedia does not create structure search capabilities; Actually would be really nice if ChemZoo/ChemSpider could utilize the structural searching capabilities to generate a Wiki Tool/wiki Page for Chemical Structure Searching. Gmpearl 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:Chem is in discussions on entirely this point, but don't hold your breath, it's a complicated area! I don't think these discussions (which involve several possible ouside sources of help) should influence this deletion debate either way. Physchim62 (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The article is encyclopediac in tone and noncontroversial. Its subject is a new site that seems serious and potetentially important. WP:WEBenvisions that Wikipedia articles on Web resources "can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known." Also this site is primarily a specialized search engine. The notability of its content, chemical literature, is not in dispute. --agr 15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The sources of information are independent of the site itself (which seems to be why it calls itself a "spider") and that information is also released through other respected channels. Either the proposer has not actually tried to use the site or he/she doesn't know how to. Quite frankly, this whole affair stinks of bad faith, although I think that Addhoc is the victim rather than the perpetrator. Physchim62 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's obviously a difference between notability and reliability. The site could well be a reliable source without being sufficiently notable to have an article. Addhoc 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A scientific source is never 100% reliable, see Talk:Cyclohexanone for an example in this field. However, this site obviously fits both criteria 1 and 3 of WP:WEB; it is also notable in the way that it does it (by collecting public data from a range of other sites and presenting them in a single way), as can be seen in this example of their external sources (example chosen to demonstrate what I feel about this whole debate). Physchim62 (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment I support keeping the article, but there is no reason to allege bad faith here. The lack of published articles about the site does raise legitimate notability concerns. I think the newness of the site and its nature justify keeping it, but that is a lenient judgement call, not a slam dunk by any means.--agr 18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regarding notability, Google turns up more than 21,000 pages mentioning the name and while none of those are published papers, many seem to be blogs written by chemists. It's not surprising that there are no published papers mentioning the site yet since it is a new service. And for a new service it seems to be creating a lot of interest in the community of people who work with this sort of thing. Newness does not automatically subvert notability, and publication in established journals is only one way of determining notability. I am not a chemist, but as an experiment I used the site by entering the names of common medications. Substantial information about the chemistry of the medications was returned quickly, well-organized and in far more detail than what I found with Google for the same chemicals. This website seems to be providing a unique way of searching and organizing information. In my opinion the article is useful for Wikipedia. --Parzival418 _Hello 17:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is becoming an significant database of chemicals, and now also of open access articles in chemistry. It'll be discussed in the specialized literature eventually, but the really significant references are in the scientific blogosphere. Chemistry, like may other fields, does its active discussion of this sort of thing on blogs and mailing lists, most of which are not open to Google. I'll add what I findDGG 05:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those familiar with the field knows that we have serious problems identifying chemical databases. In fact, I suggested here to add the databases to Wikipedia with hoping for a cleaner picture summarizing things. See also: Deep Web problem. JKW 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - PubChem officially links to ChemSpider - Please DO NOT delete, The notability is self evident. The following link from Pubchem's site is evidence - http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pcnews.html. As regards quality, I would say, the site is a very painstaking and an excellent effort to provide such an invaluable database - a dedicated researcher mining the web will truly recognize its value. Finally, I do not agree ".com" domains should be discouraged. This is not true, you have as many of them that are notbale and worth being included.Nattu 19:31, 6 June 2007 (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.