Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allylcyclopentane


 * 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. Current consensus is to keep (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Allylcyclopentane

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Topic is not notable. Nothing malicious here, just that some students were assigned to write about this compound but the associated instructor has not provided any input (perhaps an inexperienced teaching assistant).  Their only references are to chemical catalogues.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Chemical compounds, no matter how obscure, are generally kept because there is almost always a reliable source for them, even if it is hard to find. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Just as Eastmain says, chemical compounds are generally notable because there are reliable sources for them. In this case, that's true: the article cites include chemistry websites and a textbook discussing this specific compound. I don't think there's really any good policy-based reason to delete. --Lord Roem (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a chemical compound, so keep per reasons stated by Eastmain and Lord Roem.  The article is well-sourced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circumspect (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I considered closing the debate as keep but I'll comment for now, Google Books found several relevant results. As mentioned, chemicals and other science-related topics are usually always covered by science journals and the like. SwisterTwister   talk  23:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment questioning keep, while I do not completely agree with the policy or the analysis, I am cool on this. Arguments to change the policy or consensus: (1) Many tens of millions of compositions of matter are recognized (see Chemical Abstracts Service), so there is a dilution factor - readers stumble on these ultra-obscure chemicals and conclude they are notable and then fabricate/build stories based on the elaborate jargon and fancy links (none to WP:SECONDARY you will notice). My guess is that some of the editors above are not practicing chemists and were swayed by the technojargon. (2) A related component, illustrated in the present article, is that these ultra-obscure articles are neglected by serious editors and they get fluffed up or filled with bad information, exacerbating the problem of a naive reader drawing the wrong conclusions. (3) The message factor - some editors will lower their standards for notability citing this kind of precedent.  Chemical compounds are dumb, but the hot issues within Wikipedia involve people-related issues, where the criteria for notability are elevated. Uneven standards are the basis for potential discord.  Thanks to all for taking the time to comment and advise. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The idea that all chemical compounds are notable is silly.  This notion directly contradicts Wikipedia policy, including WikiProject Chemistry's own guidelines: "Chemistry topics, including chemical compounds, chemical reactions, chemist biographies, etc., should meet the general notability guidelines to be included in Wikipedia".  All the references included in the article do nothing whatsoever to suggest that this compound is notable.  Being mentioned in a chemical database is the equivalent of a person being listed in a phone book - we would never consider that evidence of notability for a biography.  ChemNerd (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm ambivalent on whether it should be kept or deleted. So long as it is factual, rather than fluffed up with irrelevant material (see ), I feel there's little harm in keeping it. Perhaps it will remain a stub forever simply because it's not used much in real life. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Further comment I disagree with some who have commented above that this article is well-sourced. As the article stood a few days ago, it referenced a webpage with predicted albumin interactions (this sort of data is often generated mindlessly and means little without context), and three suppliers/chemical portals that had scant information beyond appearance, formula, and molecular weight. For an article on a chemical to be well-sourced, it should reference textbooks and chemical encyclopedias for industrial production methods and major uses, and preferably checked syntheses (Org. and Inorg. Synth.), or perhaps peer-reviewed articles for its preparation. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete chemical compounds are generally notable because there are reliable sources for them. Since when? There are gazillions of compounds known, thoroughly characterised, and reported in reliable journals. In no way does that mean we should have an article on them all. As this article illustrates, there isn't anything interesting to say about many of them beyond a collection of physical properties and database identifiers. As far as I'm aware, WP is not yet a chemical database. Chris (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG - PubChem, ChemSpider, Chemical Book -- No  unique  names  04:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment PubChem, ChemSpider, SciFinder, Reaxys, etc. are not sufficient to establish the notability of any compound. These databases attempt to exhaustively catalog every single compound that has been made or has been mentioned in journals and patents. Chemical Book is a trading portal, and that's not a reliable source either. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - As far as I can tell, no valid argument for keeping this article has been advanced. Rifleman and Smokefoot are correct that there are plenty of compounds that will not satisfy WP:GNG, though they will be listed in databases and their syntheses appear in the literature.  Without something that discusses using the compound, it is not notable.  The only reason that this is not a !delete vote is that the article mentions the compounds use in synthesis of a pharmaceutical.  If this can be substantiated with reliable sources then there would be a reason to keep the article and decent references will have been added.  However, if no such substantiation is done before this AfD closes, and no other significant improvement is made to the article from its present state, then I suggest it be closed as delete.  EdChem (talk) 14:52, 3 December 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.