This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article was accepted on 16 March 2013 by reviewer Rybec (talk·contribs).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
The person who started a deletion request, where the discussion revolves around notability, now thinks it is opportune to add "notable" to the definition. It is a disruption of the article by pushing bizar and unintelligible WP:POV into the core of the article, and it defies what Wikipedia wants to achieve: a reliable, neutral encyclopedia. It is not only a superfluous addition, but if this User isn't stopped from what seems nothing but revenge editing after not getting what was wanted, it opens the way to add the word "notable" to every single definition in every single article. It not only doesn't make sense, it is totally disruptive. I have reverted the edit two times now, so I will not do it again, but here's my opinion, and I fervently hope there will be others that are able to stop this editor. Eissink (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The classic: I have no arguments so start with personal attacks. The Bannertalk 14:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hold a different view, a view that is comprehensible to everyone who can follow my argument, but I understand that that view is incompatible with anyone who thinks "a X is a notable Y" is a favourable definition form for Wikipedia articles. Eissink (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
You hold a view that is clearly not fact-based. And a misunderstanding. What it says is in fact "this list is only for programs/packages that have proven their notability by having an own article.". As such, it is a selection criterion to improve the list. The Bannertalk 11:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are under the false impression that this article is called List of cheminformatics toolkits, but even then it would be wrong to think that adding "notable" to the definition would actually say that the list – two paragraphs down – contains only notable toolkits. You are completely wrong here, and if you don't soon admit it, I will continue the discussion on ANI. I'm sorry, but this is all just almost too stupid words. Eissink (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
