Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2-Phenyl-hexane


 * 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. @pple complain 16:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

2-Phenyl-hexane

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Declined speedy, contested prod. Is there anything noteworthy about this molecule? Jfire (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked that question over at Wikiproject Chemistry. Hopefully they weigh in with answers. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is blank (other than the infobox), isn't that Speedy Delete worthy?  TJ   Spyke   07:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article isn't blank, it has the chemical structure and molar mass. There's no information about its use however. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did say "other than the infobox". The infobox is the only content of the article.  TJ   Spyke   07:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the problem here is that the molecule have different names, 2-Phenyl-hexane (aka (1-Methyl-pentyl)-benzene). While researching for the term in Google, it seems that the molecule has more use as a Side chain rather than a standalone molecule. I won't vote for deletion since I won't speedy something just because I don't know what the hell it is.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  13:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article clearly needs expansion. The information in the infobox could be duplicated as prose in the article now.  I would go as far as to suggest that the WP would do well to have articles on all known molecules. Greenshed (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Chemical structure image and data table is already valuable information and it is enough to keep it as a chem stub. Сасусlе 14:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, verifiable and useful, needs some expansion but AfD isn't cleanup. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cacycle and Tim Vickers already put their money where their mouths are to give us a stub with references. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Unless I'm missing something, the second reference given is actually incorrect. The reference might claim what is cited, but the paper's own citation for that information makes no mention of either name of this molecule (two versions of this paper: and ). One of these papers mentions a similar molecule, but not phenylhexane itself. And on the nature of the second reference, as verifiable as this may make the aritcle, having been used as an example in an organic chemistry text book doesn't establish notability, in my opinion. Further, I see no need to catalogue on-wiki every chemical compound ever synthesized. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subsequent developments have changed my opinion (should have checked google scholar). Someguy1221 (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * keepbeing well known enough to be used as an example in a textbook  seems a rather clear evidence of notability . DGG (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in nomenclature terms, this is the baisc unit for naming several important detergents and plastifiers. The hydrocarbon itself is not particularly interesting, but this is an article which people might look for and create so it is probably best to do it properly. Physchim62 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Articles on all low MW organic compounds seem perfectly encyclopedic to me. The current skeleton allows for future expansion should an expert happen by. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. SciFinder Scholar shows that there are 87 published articles that deal with this molecule. I couldn't find any "uses" after a quick look (I certainly didn't look at every reference, many of which are in inaccessible journals), but this compound seems clearly notable as a test case in the development of catalysts for the alkylation of aromatic compounds using alkenes, and it was also part of early studies of the rearrangements involved in the Friedel-Crafts alkylation using haloalkanes. --Itub (talk) 10:01, 29 January 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.