Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Molecular R-matrix Codes

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. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UK Molecular R-matrix Codes

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

This article is a technical nightmare and has no value to the general Wikipedia reader. Is it a project? A group? A code? If this is notable, someone please TNT this so it can be understood. Also, can it meet WP:GNG based solely on coverage in extremely technical journals? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC) updated 02:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not aware that a topic needed to be of use to a "general Wikipedia reader" (whatever that may mean, but I assume here you meant a non-technical-minded person) and that something technical would disqualify it. While there are guidelines on how technical article should be written per WP:NOTJOURNAL, it is about how a technical article should be presented, not whether such an article should be deleted. It is therefore an odd reason to nominate an article for deletion. I see many references to it in book, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], etc., suggesting it has some notability. If an article is hard to comprehend for a general reader, then the approach would be to try and improve it, not to delete it, otherwise a huge number of articles currently in Wikipedia would be deleted. (I can understand most the article BTW, so I don't see it even as a problem under WP:NOTJOURNAL, it just needs some adjustments). Hzh (talk)

The books you cited are more technical journals. But if there are textbooks that introduce the concept or more general news articles and websites (outside of the official website) then cite those. The wording needs to pass WP:NOTJOURNAL AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything significantly wrong with the wording at the moment. It clearly describes what it is. Can you let me know what the issue is now? Also do cite any relevant policy or guideline where it says that technical books/journals might not be valid sources. We assume some basic level of competence with the language in the reader, and if the "collision of electron" or "computational quantum mechanics" are problematic to the reader, there is little we can do. This is not Simple English Wikipedia. Comprehensibility per WP:TECH-CONTENT in any case is a different issue from notability and deletion criteria, and this AfD should be discussed in terms of WP:DEL-REASON and other relevant policies. Please do that when you nominate another article for deletion. Hzh (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first paragraph is clearer than what it had been. The article really should have been drafted and put through AFC first so that it could be made comprehensible like that.

If it's a set of algorithms, shouldn't it describe the algorithms? The other approximation articles have math and physics formulas and such. Instead, there's a Software section that has a list of features from Quantemol-N. Shouldn't it go into more of the history of the codes, as it is briefly mentioned in the lead and not anywhere else. As with research, the codes should be trying to solve a problem that hasn't been done before. It should go into how it is being used. There's a line saying it speeds up setup time? Great, how much does it do so? What about processing in general? What used to take (time duration 1) to compute can now be done with these codes in (time duration 2)? Or perhaps what was never done before can now be done with the codes? Is it something only the Quantemol company uses in its product? Is it being adapted by other research groups? If this were a media piece like a film, what is the equivalent for Reception in the scientific community?

If there are some physics and computing-oriented folks who can determine notability for this. That's why I was asking about other sources besides journals. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is really nothing wrong with journals and technical books, so I'm not sure on what basis you are basing the argument on. There are plenty of software used by the scientific communities that you would not have heard of but are nevertheless significant. As long as there are non-trivial description of this in journals and books, I'm fine with it. The rest are just about how the article may be written and not about notability, therefore are not relevant here. Hzh (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the journals have decent coverage. I worry that it's just a handful of journal articles from the directly-related researchers, which wouldn't show general acceptance of the material, like a local newspaper being the main sources for the local-based article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following improvements to article by XOR'easter. Arguments above by Hzh are cogent. —Gpc62 (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTJOURNAL is not a criterion for deletion, but a guidance on writing style. This is clearly a highly technical area, but we aren't here to stamp on things we don't understand if they've been covered, as this has, in independent reliable sources. As such, I believe it meets WP:GNG. Maybe we could cut down the features list of collision observables a bit? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the list of observables per WP:NOTCATALOG, and those should go to the specific software program article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL14 is literally WP:NOT… but if the article's subject is notable it's not preferable to delete the whole article. Rhinopias (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would prefer to have an article, called something like R-matrix scattering theory, about the technique itself. However, this particular software implementation appears to be sufficiently influential to pass the notability bar. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2018 (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.