Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1-propionyl-lysergic acid


 * 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. Consensus herein is for article deletion. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 13:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

1-propionyl-lysergic acid

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is unreferenced. There does not appear to be references to it in the scientific literature. Google hits are essentially only online drug discussion forums. Therefore the article fails WP:V and WP:N (chemistry WikiProjects require that chemicals meet WP:GNG). The article title is also wrong and doesn't match article content. I'm not sure if that means the article is intended to be about something else, or if it's just a careless mistake, but that can be fixed if necessary. ChemNerd (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete No sign of notability. PianoDan (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: The page has been moved to 1P-LSD, handling the mismatch between the article's title and the article's text.  ChemNerd (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 05:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, this chemical is not independently notable. There are literature references to derivatizing the 1-position, but nothing for this guy in particular. Cited sources are obviously unreliable. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral though the article does not meet wikipedia's notability standards yet it is extremely likely that it will begin to make headlines in the next six months and I have no doubt that it will need re-creating in that time. Testem (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your speculation may turn out to be true (and I'm sure I can find an admin willing to undelete/userify if so), but the relevant guideline here would be WP:CRYSTAL, which suggests this is not a reason to keep the article. ChemNerd (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, all references are bunk. Articles without a single reliable reference aren't worth keeping. It doesn't even read like an encyclopedic article. The introductory summary explains more about the current state of designer drugs than the chemical itself. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect LSD until it is more notable. Hajme (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.