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. ✗plicit 01:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DACAPO[edit]

DACAPO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I'm not sure if this software is notable. The article has been an unreferenced stub since creation in 2005, there are no comments on the talk page, and the onlydefinitive secondary WP:SIGCOV result was [1]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - A Google Scholar search for "Quantum Chemistry" and DaCapo shows that a lot of papers USE this software, but they don't COVER it. If there's no secondary coverage of the software itself, but it's getting used... is that notable? What could we base an article on that wouldn't be WP:OR?PianoDan (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, lacks notability and coverage by multiple secondary sources. Cinadon36 08:05, 21 May 2021 (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.