Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computational Chemistry Grid Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Computational_Chemistry_Grid

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 redirect to Computational chemistry. Sandstein 18:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Computational Chemistry Grid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable computer cluster or NSF project. DMacks (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep nonnotable? Bullsit. The nom miserably failed with due diligence (google) - reliable sources abound. I did create the article in the early days of wp when rules for sourcing were lax, but since computational chemists dont give a fuck for improving it, me too. Whatever.- Altenmann >talk 22:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a somewhat generic term, and lots of the hits I found were off-topic. I did find some guides to using it and organizations saying that they use it. It's been tagged for several months and I didn't quickly find in-depth review content about it in independent sources. DMacks (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was able to find some independent sources in books [1], [2], [3]. I'm not sure that is enough depth for notability, perhaps marginal notability? If not enough for standalone, merging into a computational chemistry article seems reasonable, but I don't know of a suitable target. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Computational chemistry. This is apparently one of the many projects the NSF funds to see if something will come of it and then fade. The site itself seems to have been abandoned sometime between 2015 and 2017 without anything approaching a final result or report. The idea of computational chemistry is certainly notable but this particular project does not seem to have made much of an impact academically. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: (as nominator) I would be fine with redirecting, and possibly a one-sentence about it there, but I don't know where "there" is. DMacks (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Computational chemistry and merge a summary sentence. The target is reasonable and a single sentence seems like due weight and will establish context for the redirect. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I can not see this as notable on its own, but a merge to Computational chemistry would be fine with one or two sentences about the grid. --Bduke (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. Check their web site, https://www.gridchem.org/ . This is apparently a defunct project. My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (not merge) to Comp. chem. - That one would use computers in computational chemistry is obvious, but this specific NSF-funded project to do so seems not particularly noteworthy such that it would merit a merge. No substantial independent sourcing for any of it so as a stand alone concept it would merit deletion. Agricolae (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete don't redirect I am sure there are lots of projects in computational chemistry, and I don't see why the computational chemistry article should mention this particular one just because an article about this particular one is up for deletion. This project isn't really about actual computational chemistry anyway, it's just a way of allocating processing time. I suppose a merge to Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment might have been appropriate as the Computational Chemistry Grid is an "Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment Science Gateway". However it's currently only a redirect to a sub-section.----Pontificalibus 15:21, 3 February 2020 (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.