Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2-Nonanol


 * 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   keep per WP:SNOW. Since the start of the AfD significant content has been added. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

2-Nonanol

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete chemicals are not inherently notable and this unsourced article purports to give nothing more than its chemical formula. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing about where this chemical is found (if natural) or what it is used for (if artificial). Nothing about what it looks like. Those are the bare minimum expected in an article about a chemical compound, and they are not found in this article. Keep. Concerns have been addressed. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 23:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no references. Moontowandi (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. While I do not approve of single-line entries, simple molecules are inherently notable due to their potential use as building blocks. If this were to be deleted, it should have been as A3 no content rather than not-notable. Simple molecules are usually commercially available, and extensive physical data are usually available (See NIST Webbook of Chemistry). This molecule appears to be used as a fragrance. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Rifleman. NIST Webbook of Chemistry and likelyhood of more data enought to make it notable. GregManninLB (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I also agree with Rifleman. The concerns have been addressed. --Bduke (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I really think that it is a waste of time that these concerns were not addressed on the talk page before nominating for deletion. This is particularly true when the article is only a single day old. M stone (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Give it a chance! Chris (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Scifinder turns up 660 references to this compound in the scientific literature, indicating its usefulness in the chemical sciences. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reasons as Rifleman 82 JoJan (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As above, there is likely enough content that could be added to the article. EagleFalconn (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2008 (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.