Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molecular computational identification

Molecular computational identification

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

Google returns no obvious sources for this topic by this name. This article has had almost no content since 2006. The one source cited is a dead link and I cannot find the article archived on the publishers' own website.

No evidence is available that this concept meets WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep GScholar shows 191 cites for the seminal paper, as well as plenty of other papers. That said, I'm not convinced that the current stubby description is accurate. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: Hmmm... okay, I see this in gscholar, and it has 191 cites.

Prasanna de Silva, A.; James, Mark R.; McKinney, Bernadine O. F.; Pears, David A.; Weir, Sheenagh M. (3 September 2006). "Molecular computational elements encode large populations of small objects". Nature Materials. 5 (10): 787–789. doi:10.1038/nmat1733.

Now we have a source and a lead on other sources. I am also not sure that anything about this article matches that or other sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion discussions ought really to confine themselves to whether the subject is notable, not how good the content written about it is at the present moment. In this case it's shoddy. But it takes no time to find articles like this, this, this, this, and this, this which suggests it probably noteworthy. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm finding some reviews that cite the seminal paper, so it passes my initial science sniff test at least. This may only amount to a stub though at best since a few of those seem to be minor mention. Maybe it's a stub at best, but I'm not entirely opposed to deletion either unless someone can show a source that has something more solid than passing mention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]