Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bentiromide (data page)


 * 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 and merge into appropriate page(s). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Bentiromide (data page)

 * — (View AfD)

Orphaned data dump, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Contested prod. MER-C 03:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. All the info is available from the links in the main Bentiromide article, and we don't need this level of detail in a general encyclopedia. Tevildo 04:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Josh Parris #: 06:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Meno25 07:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. These data dump pages are common, as it was part of a standard template.  My guess is that it has been orphaned accidentally; looks like a matter for the WikiProject Chemistry to look into. John Vandenberg
 * Being common is no excuse for keeping the article. And if they violate WP:NOT, which they probably do, then they all need to go. Further down today's AFDs, I'm taking on a walled garden of more than 250 articles of pure fancruft. This is also similar to Ohconfucius's successful systematic purge of 150+ stubs on unremarkable masts, which is just winding up. MER-C 10:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 09:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think some of this material should be merged into the main article. Your vague use of WP:NOT is not helpfull. What is an encyclopedia if it is not giving the reader information? I agree with John Vandenberg that time should be given for the WikiProject Chemistry to think about this. It certainly is not fancruft. --Bduke 21:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge. Ideally everything in Category:Chemical data pages would be merged into their respective articles. Every bit of data in these pages is verifiable with reliable sources. I don't think afd is the proper route for this sort of cleanup. Make a note of it at the proper Wikiproject talk page. --- RockMFR 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * merge per above. -- Librarianofages 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or maybe Merge. The data is verifyable, tells about the compound, so I don't see why this would not be encyclopedic (and that goes for other datapages as well).  I really don't see where this fits into WP:NOT, NONE of these points apply, the closest I get is point 4, instruction manual.  But there it does state "while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things" (this is a thing, IMHO), which would be in favour of keeping, since it is not one of the not-items following that statement.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or maybe Keep. The information is useful, but there is very little in the data page that is not in the main article already, so it could be merged. I think it is unlikely that we will ever have enough data on this molecule so that it really deserves a data page to avoid distracting from the main article, which makes me lean towards merge rather than keep. I disagree that Wikipedia doesn't deserve this level of detail because it is a "general encyclopedia". Here I guide myself on the principle that Wikipedia is not paper. Itub 23:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and make sure the 'pubchem' link is in Bentiromide. Why do we have these data pages?  If I am interested in Bentiromide's properties and my career (or life?) depends on it, I will go to Bentiromide (after searcing for "Bentiromide"  not "Bentiromide (data)", so a merge is irrelevant) and from there to the external source.  This is an encyclopaedia that summarises chemicals and their use.  It is not a duplicate of better maintained, exclusive repositories of chemical data.  --Steve (Slf67)talk 00:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or maybe Merge : This page contains verifiable and useful data. This is not just a data dump. JoJan 09:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a not WP:Chem data page, although many of those would also be subject to the comments made about this one. WP:Chem data pages should not be "indiscrimate" commections of data: they came into being because the chembox was becoming ridiculously long, and yet people still wished to add more data to it (in fact, they still do). Other science projects, notably WikiProject Elements, use the (data page) suffix to give basic data which might otherwise be the subject of revert wars over sources. This approach has been in use for a couple of years now without obvious problems. Physchim62 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delete: useful information already well covered in Bentiromide page. Also the physical properties / hazards section does not provide any information at all except links to articles on NMR, IR etc (but not an actual NMR spectrum!). This is cheating the audience, a section on information that simply is not there. V8rik 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * reluctant merge: I like the page, but it does seem to duplicate much of what is in the main page's infobox.  These things should be standardized.--Wehwalt 16:20, 17 January 2007 (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.