Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MARTINI

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. Seems like evidence of notability was found during the course of the discussion. If there are COI issues with edits to the article, WP:COIN would be the place to discuss them; we generally do not consider COI editing as a sufficient reason for deleting a topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MARTINI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This page serves nothing more than to promote the work of its authors and is based entirely on primary literature almost completely from the creator himself EvilxFish (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would agree. 11 of the 17 main paper refs are to Marrink. The 18th is the site. Having such a singular focus on one individual to signify the article is unhealthy and breaks Wikipedia many source criteria. scope_creep^Talk 11:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and set the MARTINI entry on the martini DAB page to point to Force field (chemistry)#Coarse-grained force fields where there are a few sentences on it. I was unable to find multiple, in-depth, reliable sources independent of the creators of the, so the article seems to fail notability criteria per WP:GNG. As there are multiple peer-reviewed articles, there is some verifiable material for the topic, and the brief mention at Force field (chemistry)#Coarse-grained force fields seems of due weight to me. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Update Changing my recommendation based on Kingofaces43 good points. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

A mention in another wikipedia article is not enough to make this notable. Creators of forcefields have been making wikipedia articles on them and putting links to them in other articles. A few have already been deleted. EvilxFish (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed such notability. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One, I'm not seeing the independent factor here needed for notability, but that also plays into this not being a good search term in a merge/redirect as mentioned above, especially given the more predominant martini. In terms of Force field (chemistry)#Coarse-grained force fields, that article can handle things independently, but I don't see anything that needs to be tied to this current article in terms of redirects or edit histories. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point about the common name. Deleting the article, but retaining the redirect on the DAB page may be a better solution. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, the page was apparently created by a contributor with WP:COI. However, the subject is sufficiently notable and highly cited in its field, so I think it should be kept as a legitimate sub-page of Force field (chemistry). The page was not written as a pure promotion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A complete lack of appropriate secondary sources, and very few independent sources clearly demonstrates a fail of notability criteria, see here. There is a clear conflict of interest as you have noted. EvilxFish (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI is only an assumption and is not relevant (the article was significantly changed by others since the initial creation). One can find a large number of secondary RS (reviews) independent on the author about it, For example,

Developing and Testing of Lipid Force Fields with Applications to Modeling Cellular Membranes By:Leonard, AN (Leonard, Alison N.)[ 2 ] ; Wang, E (Wang, Eric)[ 1 ] ; Monje-Galvan, V (Monje-Galvan, Viviana)[ 1 ] ; Klauda, JB (Klauda, Jeffery B.)[ 1,2 ]

Interplay of G Protein-Coupled Receptors with the Membrane: Insights from Supra-Atomic Coarse Grain Molecular Dynamics Simulations By:Periole, X (Periole, Xavier)[ 1,2,3 ]

Effect of Membrane Composition on Receptor Association: Implications of Cancer Lipidomics on ErbB Receptors By:Pawar, AB (Pawar, Aiswarya B.)[ 1,2 ] ; Sengupta, D (Sengupta, Durba)[ 1,2 ] Molecular dynamics simulations of biological membranes and membrane proteins using enhanced conformational sampling algorithmsBy:Mori, T (Mori, Takaharu)[ 1,2 ] ; Miyashita, N (Miyashita, Naoyuki)[ 3,4 ] ; Im, W (Im, Wonpil)[ 5,6 ] ; Feig, M (Feig, Michael)[ 3,7,8 ] ; Sugita, Y (Sugita, Yuji)[ 1,2,3,8,9 ]

And so on, and so on. People who say this is not a popular and widely used force field are simply not familiar with the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these. Certainly in my case, beyond some experience with AMBER, I am not an expert and I found it challenging to find independent RS. The first review looks solid and in-depth. Periole is a Marrink collaborator, so I am dubious about independence for the second reference. The third mentions MARTINI in the keywords, but not the body of the paper (am I missing something?). The fourth has a couple of paragraphs on the MARTINI model and brief mentions elsewhere. These by themselves might be enough for marginal notability. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just copy-pasted three first reviews from a longer list which can be easily retrieved from Web of Science. Well, I do not do MD myself... I am just saying one can find hundreds studies and publications which used this force field and many reviews. If someone was a collaborator is irrelevant in terms of notability of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My university library has hundreds of independent peer reviewed science journal articles that use the MARTINI forcefield. It's a widely published topic. In addition to the ones already provided by others, here are some more:

1. "Coarse-graining poly(ethylene oxide)-poly(propylene oxide)-poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO-PPO-PEO) block copolymers using the MARTINI force field"; Nawaz, Selina ; Carbone, Paola ; Nawaz, Selina (correspondence author) ; Nawaz, Selina (record owner); The journal of physical chemistry; February 13, 2014, Vol.118(6), pp.1648-1659
2. "Martini Coarse-Grained Force Field: Extension to RNA"; Uusitalo, Jaakko J ; Ingólfsson, Helgi I ; Marrink, Siewert J ; Faustino, Ignacio; Biophysical Journal, 25 July 2017, Vol.113(2), pp.246-256
3. "A Structurally Flexible Protein Backbone for the MARTINI Coarse Grained Force Field"; Periole, Xavier ; Marrink, Siewert-Jan ; Tieleman, Peter; Biophysical Journal, 2011, Vol.100(3), pp.613a-613
4. "Investigation of the Martini Force Field for Lipid Raft Membranes"; Davis, Ryan S ; Laradji, Mohamed; Biophysical Journal, 31 January 2012, Vol.102(3), pp.295a-295a
5. "Protein-Ligand Binding Simulation with the Martini Coarse-Grained Force Field"; Negami, Tatsuki ; Shimizu, Kentaro ; Terada, Tohru; Biophysical Journal, 28 January 2014, Vol.106(2), pp.609a-609a

There are tons of studies in this area. WP:SIGCOV is exceedingly met on this topic. @EvilxFish: I strongly urge you to withdraw your nomination.4meter4 (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources provided by My very best wishes and 4meter4. BD2412 T 19:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but change the name..I am on the wagon ATM and this article name is making me want a cocktail. Lightburst (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Struck my recommendation above. With sources 1 and 4 from My very best wishes and sources 1,4, and 5 from 4meter4, sufficient in depth, independent RS have been found to demonstrate notability of the topic. Nice work on tracking down sources. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:54, 15 November 2019 (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.