Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3-Methylcyclopropene


 * 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 redirect to 1-methylcyclopropene . Seems like the best compromise between a range of delete/merge/redirect opinions. Also WP:ATD -- RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

3-Methylcyclopropene

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is simply not a notable chemical compound. Although there are passing mentions in the scientific literature, the only report that I can find where the 3-methylcyclopropene gets real attention is this one, where the conclusion is simply that it compares unfavorably with 1-Methylcyclopropene (a notable compound) in inhibiting ethylene responses in plants, so this really does nothing to establish notability. ChemNerd (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete in agreement with the assessment above. Also by deleting it, we send the message that Wikipedia is not in the stamp collecting business nor is Wikipedia a dumping ground for random factoids. Articles can be very short but they must be based on some idea of notability.  Its not a big deal though. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge As ChemNerd has pointed out it seems to be a content fork of 1-Methylcyclopropene. A brief note on that page would seem suitable. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge - The article is really a WP:DICDEF. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, not to "send a message" but per lack of notability. If we were to redirect, I think to cyclopropene as the parent subject (broadly construed) is more appropriate than to 1-Methylcyclopropene; but in any case, it would be a weird redirect, and likely to surprise readers. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 1-methylcyclopropene as the only notable verifiable thing worth saying about 3-methylcyclopropene is in comparison to this compound, and can be based on sources like this book. There simply aren't the sources to support a stand-alone article.  EdChem (talk) 18:31, 30 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.