Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4'-Hydroxy-5,7-dimethoxy-8-methylflavan


 * 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. No clear consensus for redirection, so that remains an editorial decision.  Sandstein  04:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

4'-Hydroxy-5,7-dimethoxy-8-methylflavan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A search of the chemical literature shows that this chemical compound has been mentioned in only one scientific paper. (Ali, et al. Chromones and flavans from Pancratium maritimum.    Phytochemistry  (1990),  p  625-627). The paper merely describes this compound as one of many isolated from Pancratium maritimum. As such, this compound is completely unremarkable and has generated zero scientific interest since it was first reported over 20 years ago. There is nothing more to say about this compound than the simple fact that it has been identified in one plant. Web searches turn up listings (here, here) in autogenerated chemical databases, but do nothing more than confirm that this chemical exists. As such, this topic completely fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. ChemNerd (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Chemical compounds, no matter how little has been written, should be automatically be notable as soon as they are mentioned in even one study report. Significance can occur at any time and such an article is an asset to the encyclopedia even with such little content. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are over 100 million chemical compounds known. Do you think it is reasonable for Wikipedia to have an article on any one of them, or every one of them?  I think we must draw a line somewhere between what we include and what we don't and the general notability guideline is the consensus on where to draw that line.  Suggesting that all chemicals are somehow inherently notable is contrary to that consensus.  ChemNerd (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But this is has in fact been mentioned in a notable scientific journal even if it was 20 years ago. It is fine, it provides decent and to the point info as well and that is enough for me. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 01:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 *  Keep Redirect per Hghyux. Chemicals are inherently notable in my opinion, especially those formed naturally. Redirect to Pancratium maritimum S Æ don talk 21:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per WP:GNG, multiple sources (ideally secondary sources, not primary sources like research papers) are generally expected to establish notability.  There is no policy that chemical compounds are an exception to this rule (nor is there any particular reason to have such an exception).  The whole point of the notability guideline is that our personal opinions are not the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia; rather, something is notable if reputable sources agree that it is such.  A single academic paper does not establish notability&mdash;the question is, did the paper withstand the test of time to be accepted as correct and noteworthy in its scientific field, as evidenced by being cited (approvingly) and its conclusions (or in this case, the chemical) used repeatedly over time by other papers. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the point of a notability guidelines is that our personal opinions don't matter. Guidelines are just that: guidelines.  They are reflective of community norms and consensus, but they don't dictate it.  WP:5P trumps all else, and last on the list is of course "Wikipedia does not have firm rules."  You are right that there is not much in the way of sourcing here, but a stub on a chemical has the potential to be beneficial.  The lack of information conveys exactly that: there is not a lot of info on the subject.  If some chemistry nerd happens upon the article and it sparks interest in research then H!, it will have been worth the 1kb in server space.  We have nothing to gain by deleting it, and maybe nothing to gain by keeping it, but there's at least the potential that spreading this information could lead to something good and from a perspective of utiliy the latter makes more sense.  S Æ don talk 21:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - not all compounds are automatically notable.  This is about as obscure as they come. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I dunno, to me it seems odd that all high schools are inherently notable but the actual mathematical foundations of the universe aren't. But that's WP! :)  S Æ don talk 21:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * From a broad perspective, Wikipedia guidelines for notability are inherently based on how many people have heard about a topic. The WP:GNG merely makes the evidence confirmable beyond a reasonable doubt. Any given high school will likely be known about by potentially hundreds of thousands of people, if you include family, friends, and so forth. I'm going to be bold and predict that the number is somewhat lower for this compound. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B  music  ian  00:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete If it has only been mentioned in one publication, it appears to fail WP:N. There is no inherent notability for every possible arrangement of C, H and O atoms in a molecule. Edison (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete It's not clear that anything is really known about this compound, other than that it is made my a particular flower. Might reasonably be redirected to Pancratium maritimum. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Edison. We shouldn't have a separate article for each possible compound any more than for each possible arrangement of Lego bricks. Possibly could be merged with some list of possible compounds of which it is a member. lws (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pancratium maritimum.  Th e S te ve   06:15, 29 April 2012 (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.