Talk:ChemDraw

This was flagged as a speedy, as an advertisement... which I think this version, created by a user with no previous contributions, probably is. But that avoids the wider issue of whether the CambridgeSoft article should itself be deleted.

If so, then obviously this goes too; If not, then IMO the redirect should stay, as ChemDraw appears to be the most notable product of CambridgeSoft.

Deletion of the CambridgeSoft article has been hinted at in the past, but never actually proposed. Perhaps it's time it was, to clear this up.

My opinion is that the CambridgeSoft article should and will survive an AfD nomination, and that the redirect from ChemDraw should therefore stay too. But if anyone disagrees with this, the way forward is AfD. On the other hand, if a formerly useful article or redirect is changed to something useless (such as an advert), the way forward is to revert it, not to speedy delete it. Andrewa 21:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

I do not agree that the redirect is in place - in fact, the current article about CambridgeSoft does not even mention ChemDraw (it really looks like an advert promoting the brand), so why the heck confuse users by redirecting there without any note what is the connection between these two things? In my opinion, ChemDraw deserves its own article ... but who is going to write it? :-/ --85.13.126.5 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Reply