Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultrafast shape recognition Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ultrafast_shape_recognition

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 No consensus to delete. The debate on whether to keep as is or merge can be taken up on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrafast shape recognition

The subject of this article fails to meet WP:N, further the page is an orphan page. 81.132.192.68 (talk · contribs) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google turns up a whole load of information, so it easily passes the notability guideline. I'll add a category and try to find a few more links, but it's a useful article to have. PeterSymonds | talk 12:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, variety of science sources like here. But none are 3rd party, happy to keep if WP:N can be established.. SunCreator (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chemical database. Can go as a search method. Currently covers only 2D search. Shyamal (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am only finding one citation of the paper, but I expect that nine months is a pretty short turnaround in computational chemistry and their technique should be useful for macromolecular people. Many of the early Google hits for the article title are just the paper being indexed by the several databases, but they also were written up by New Scientist Tech and National Foundation for Cancer Research. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on citations from Eldereft. Propaniac (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is no doubt that the term has been used. I am aware of a wide range of molecular search algorithms and papers can be titled - fast search ..., ultrafast search etc... depending on the paper style, authors etc. Some may just dryly state it as a linear time algorithm for the search of .... or suchlike. The matter however is not merely whether there exists a reliable source, but whether the content is substantial enough for an article of its own. This should not have been a delete discussion, but a merge discussion and the effort should really be where such a single paper concept should go. 04:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no doubt that the author of this approach, Graham Richards, is very eminent and I suspect this approach will become important. Nevertheless this article is premature and should be merged, perhaps as Shyamal suggests, to Chemical database. I also note that Graham Richards does not have an article and that should be remedied. He is notable for his science and his administrative work of head of the school of Chemistry at Oxford, resulting in a major new building being erected. --Bduke (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a paragraph on search by conformation to Chemical database to cover this topic. Shyamal (talk) 02:21, 20 April 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.