English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Materials and Processes Simulations

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 delete. There do not appear to be any sufficiently independent third-party references to underline any notability. Black Kite 11:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Materials and Processes Simulations

This piece of scientific software does not appear to particularly notable. Previous 'prod' because of the same concern was removed by an IP user without giving an argument addressing the issue. Searching on google has not left me hopeful that evidence can be found that this is notable. TimothyRias (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I tried to explain to on my reply to the deletion suggestion, Materials and processes Simulation technology is a tool for the researchers and developers and I personally think it should be added to wiki, as a chemist I have used several softwares which can also be found in wiki with less to offer. It is possible that I am having a formatting issue with the page, but I thought I have followed the page creation documentation closely. If you would like to learn more about Materials Processes Simulation, please follow this link http://www.scienomics.com/Products/maps/index.php, I would be glad if you would give me a helpful suggestion on how to retain this information on the wiki so that other chemists can help populate it too, meanwhile I am trying to rephrase my discussion to point to the fact that MAPS is a useful software, if it meets the needs pls do me a favour, remove the delete template.
Thankyou
--RosaWeber (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether the software is useful or not is completely irrelevant. The keypoint on deciding if there should be an article on it comes down to notability. (please read WP:N for the relevant guideline.) Currently, the article does nothing to assert that MAPS is in anyway notable, nor have I been able to find any evidence on the internet to suggest that it is. Maybe MAPS is notable in someway, in which case you should provide evidence (from a reliable source). (For example a review in a professional journal or the like.) There is lots of useful software that is not notable. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

Delete. There is no indication of notability: even the article's author does not claim there is, only that its subject is "useful". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, MAPS is mentioned in one of the most respected peer reviewed Journals for Physical Chemistry (J. Phys. Chem. A, 2009, 113 (12), pp 2967–2974) and if you do a google search with the terms "Materials and Processes Simulations", you will find MAPS in the first page of google.
Thank you once again --RosaWeber (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to the above comment (1) Is it just "mentioned" in the Journal, or is there substantial coverage (e.g. a significant article about it)? It is an important difference. (2) After reading the above comment about a Google search, I have repeated the search and looked at every hit on the first page of Google results. I found the company's own website, the Wikipedia article, a directory entry or two, a couple of pages that barely mention it. This could not by any stretch be called substantial independent coverage. One of the Google hits [1] was to a page where someone merely says that the Scienomics website does not give enough information about "Materials and Processes Simulations" to enable one to evaluate it, and goes on to say that he has "been disappointed by other folks making similar claims in the past". No, the fact that the software can be found in Google hits is no guarantee of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the journal reference. It is simply mentioned in the acknowledgements thanking Scienomics for providing the software, nothing more. (TimothyRias (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Responding to your comments 1) TimothyRias already answered that question, the google hit for CCL as you would confirm is a discussion of almost 5years, (the year Scienomics was founded) which I find not fair to be held against this article. Please take a look at this [2] :-) a French magazine discussing MAPS explicitly. and then you can also look at these links: NAMD [3],LAMMPS [4] Towhee [5], but to mention a few. Please also note that some Websites, Journals and even articles refer to MAPS as (scienomics software)which is 100% true.

I would also like to refer you to the Scientific Book published in 2004,which explicitly discusses MAPS J.-R. Hill, L. Subramanian, and A. Maiti Molecular modeling Techniques in Materials science CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, 2005, ISBN 0-8247-2419-4 --RosaWeber (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This book is listed on a page of "publications" on the web site of Scienomics, the company which publishes the "MAPS" software. It is not clear to me what this means: it may be simply a list of publications which they think is useful in promoting their software, or it may be a list of publications in which they had a hand. In the latter case clearly it would not be an independent source.

The NAMD web page cited does not mention "Materials and Processes Simulations". The LAMMPS web page cited merely says "The company Scienomics has created an interface to LAMMPS as part of their Materials and Processes Simulations (MAPS) platform which is described at their WWW page. It can be used to visualize and perform analysis on the output of LAMMPS simulations." The Towhee page merely says "Scienomics sells software that puts a friendly face onto the Towhee program (among others). Their MAPS software provides a GUI and some additional thermodyamics tools for those who prefer an industrial style software interface." None of this could be called "substantial coverage".

The French magazine article mentioned above (here: [6]) is the first I have seen which might constitute significant coverage of this software. One article like this, actually about the software, is far more relevant than dozens of sources which just mention it. ~~Whether there is enough there will be for the closing administrator to decide, but it is enough to persuade me to withdraw my "delete".~~ Postscript, added 25 July 2009 I have looked more closely at the web site on which the French article appears. Although the article itself looks fine, the web site offers publicity services to businesses, so my revised opinion is that the French "article" is probably a paid for or self-promotional piece. Unless someone can specifically produce evidence that this is not so I think we have to discount it as an independent source, in view of the nature of the site on which it appears.

On a separate matter, the point of describing the Google hit which mentioned the lack of information was not to indicate that someone had a poor opinion of the software, which would be irrelevant anyway, as notability of a subject depends on people giving the subject coverage, whether that coverage expresses approval, disapproval, or neither. The point was that the mention was trivial, and I gave it as one example to show that merely getting Google hits does not indicate that there is significant coverage. Although Google searches are a convenient way to look for information which may establish notability, they do not themselves establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you James --RosaWeber (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The French article seems promising for providing a minimal amount of proof of notability. Unfortunately my French is not good enough to completely understand its nature nor that of the site it is on. For example I can't really determine if it is an advertorial of something of that sort. Hopefully somebody with a better of command of French can comment on that. (This has been one of my main concerns that this wikipedia article was an attempt to advertise the software, which is not what wikipedia is for.) (TimothyRias (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

See my "postscript" above on this matter. The more I have looked at the matter the more I have formed the impression that TimothyRias's fears seem to be well-founded: the whole thing may well be a bit of very professional self-promtion, dressed up to look like objective coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That article was written by an independent journalist.--RosaWeber (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 19:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I would just be careful to not make notable the antonym of obscure. That is, it could be possible for an entire journal article to be made possible with a piece of software and have it get only a sentence or two mention in "Methods" or an acknoweldgement. This may or may not come up on some publishers' searches. I think in the past I've found pages on molecular dynamics simulations and other general areas. At minimum, a few passing mentions in referred journals probably makes it notable but obscure at least for inclusion in a list of software in the general area. If it really only is mentioned a few times, and there is a competing piece of software, perhaps it could get a sentence of two mention in an article about the dominant software that performs a competing function. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Judging from the table of content s of the book cited, [hhttp://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/57373651?page=frame&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loc.gov%2Fcatdir%2Ftoc%2Ffy054%2F2004061917.html%26checksum%3Daef60a0b27fe8cb392cf982c389c8fc4&title=&linktype=digitalObject&detail=], it does not appear to have any one section devoted to this software--how can we tell if it offers detailed coverage. As for the papers, if that's a complete list of the published papers using this software, it may well not be notable. DGG (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying your comments I would like to start from the issue of the French Journal: As one can read, competition is mentioned there as well together with the interviews of Scienomics customers (Magali Charlot, from Rhodia and Hervé Toulhoat, from IFP). The article discusses the process through which MAPS is born, i.e., the IMT-Consortium. The people that where interviewed explained themselves, the concepts and advantages of MAPS. I guess that these people (together with all other members of the consortium, BASF, Unilever, Eni etc) are notable enough and their independent judgments should count.For non French speaking people who are interested in knowing what the French magazine had to say, please follow this link, but I warn you before hand...it is a poor translation, i hope you can cope with it like I did ...enjoy :-) http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/la-modelisation-se-met-a-l-ecoute-des-industriels.N51176&ei=bedkSua3GI6sjAfS6pz5Dw&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DLa%2Bmod%25C3%25A9lisation%2Bse%2Bmet%2B%25C3%25A0%2Bl%2527%25C3%25A9coute%2Bdes%2Bindustriels%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG -- About the book I had cited please in see 1.6 Software Related to Materials Modeling .................... . 20 discusses MAPS along with other similar engines. Cited Publications I had cited just a few publications, looking at other software entries in the wiki, you would agree with me too that they do not have endless entry of publications either. --RosaWeber (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

1.6 is one section of one chapter of the book, and that section "discusses MAPS along with other similar engines", so that MAPS is not the focus even of that one section, but just only one of several programs mentioned. On the face of it this does not appear to indicate substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

additionally I am sure you would like to see this too. http://www.materialssimulation.com/node/296. But please do not ask me for translation because I am not Japanese, I just stumbled into it a few minutes ago. --RosaWeber (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete on the basis of the above responses. There are no genuine independent references for notability. DGG (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep based on the French article. It's a short discussion of the history, goals, and development of MAPS, and mentions that an IMT consortium (an industrial consortium) was created specifically around that software, to unify and concentrate efforts on materials modeling. It's definetaly more relevant that someone's grandmother's homemade nanomaterial simulation software. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- That may well be true, but it is nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability criteria. The only sources which have been offered which conceivably might be thought to be significant coverage are are The French article and the book by Hill, Subramanian, and Maiti. From the account above it seems unlikely that teh book gives substantial coverage. As for the French article, I have given reasons above for being doubtful about its independence. RosaWeber states "That article was written by an independent journalist", but how reliable an assessment is this? RosaWeber (the original author and main contributor of the Wikipedia article) has told us "MAPS is mentioned in one of the most respected peer reviewed Journals...", but omitted to mention that "It is simply mentioned in the acknowledgements thanking Scienomics for providing the software, nothing more." (TimothyRias). RosaWeber has given references to web pages which turn out to just mention the software, or, in one case, not to mention it. RosaWeber has given us a reference to a book mentioning MAPS, but DGG expresses doubt as to whether it gives substantial coverage, and RosaWeber's reply "does not appear to indicate substantial coverage". Apart from edits to the article under discussion here, edits to this AfD page, and edits to his/her own user page, almost all of RosaWeber's edits to date have consisted of adding unambiguous spam links for MAPS or its publisher to articles. I think under these circumstances we have to consider the possibility of a conflict of interest. If there is indeed such a COI then the statement "That article was written by an independent journalist" cannot be relied on; even if there is no COI RosaWeber's record (described above) cannot inspire trust in the statement. I have to conclude that no reliable evidence has been presented for substantial independent coverage, so there is no evidence of notability. I am also strongly tempted to conclude that, as TimothyRias suggested, the whole thing is an attempt at promoting the software. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've purged the sales-pitch passages, the article is now much more neutral. I'm pretty sure that the publications section is about as worthless as it gets, at least from what I can access ATM, and should probably be removed.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What this article needs right now is a list of university physics and chemistry departements that uses MAPS in a non-trivial way.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible a new source [7] (in Greek).Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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.