Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10-Fluorocannabidiol diacetate


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

10-Fluorocannabidiol diacetate

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PRODded, dePRODded, rePRODded and back again. Rules are rules, so I have taken this to AfD. This compound fails WP:GNG, having only been described in one primary source as an inactive compound. Might become a WP:SNOW delete. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – According to, this compound is inactive as a cannabinoid. Furthermore the only mention of his compound is in this single primary source. Hence there is no known use for this compound. This chemical has not received any coverage in independent reliable sources nor is it likely in the future and therefore per the general notability guideline, this compound is not suitable as a stand alone article. Boghog (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I created the page to fill up red links in the Cannabinoids Template for completeness sake, but I can see how it lacks the required notability. I'm okay with it being deleted as long as 4'-Fluorocannabidiol remains where it is. It also only has one source but it has better properties than other cannabinoids, so I believe that is notable enough. Melchior Philips (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree that 4'-Fluorocannabidiol is a sufficiently interesting expansion to the structure activity relationship of cannabidiol derivatives that it should stay, but the two less active or inactive compounds from the same paper do not meet WP:N. Meodipt (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete (I was one of those who de-prodded). Inactivity is, in itself, irrelevant but there are inadequate references to sustain an article. Thincat (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are insufficient available sources to indicate that the chemical compound meets the general notability guideline.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:38, 6 September 2016 (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.