Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMolecules

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. Sandstein 06:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EMolecules

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

Currently zero sources. There are some hits on Google News, but nothing that indicates notability. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed notable, eMolecules is e.g. one of the biggest data sources for ChemSpider. But the article is written like an advertisement.--TIB-NOA (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Written as an ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Reluctant delete. I've bought molecules from them before. Probably at least 6.02x10²³ of them! ;) But I can't find enough sources that actually cover the company in sufficient depth to rewrite the article, which is obviously unsuitable as it stands. Most coverage is routine press release stuff, announcements of partnerships and database integration, blog posts and chatter from chemists about their products, etc. This is the kind of subject where an article would be useful, so I hate to delete it, but if the sources aren't there then there's nothing else we can do. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. eMolecules is a great resource for research chemists like me. I use it nearly every day. But I can't find any significant coverage in independent sources to establish notability. Regarding the claim above that being "one of the biggest data sources for ChemSpider" (it's actually the sixth largest source) establishes notability, if that's the best thing that can be said about it's notability, it's not notable. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:03, 16 December 2016 (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.