Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemical postevolution (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Chemical postevolution
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This was nominated for deletion in January but closed as speedy keep, unjustifiably in my opinion. Most of the follow-up questions made by the nominator were ignored, and the notability argument, particularly regarding independent sources, was not fully considered. There are only four articles on Google Scholar that use this term (and not on the title, but maybe just in passing). All the articles are very recent and all by the same set of authors. This strongly indicates that this is a neologism that is promoted and used by a very small group of people, which is the antithesis of notability. The fact that the term is used in conferences (and especially in Gordon Conferences, which expressly forbid their use as references) is certainly not enough for notability yet. Maybe in a few years "chemical postevolution" will become an established term. Then we can have an article about it. (My opinion of the term is that it is just a fancy buzzword, and that well-established terms such as lead optimization are preferable, but what matters for the purpose of AfD is current, proven, independent notability. I just add this parenthetical note in case possible redirects or merges are suggested.) Itub (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I said weak keep at the first afd, but unless there are more articles, it does seem to be not really established as a term & I don't see why it should, as it does not really mean anything more than "laboratory modification of natural products" DGG (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I am not sure that speedy keep was the best interpretation of the previous discussion. There has been no significant change in the last four and one half months in the article, and the term still appears not to be in common use. Merge to drug discovery or total synthesis or somewhere might work. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, used in two papers by the same authors on PubMed ( and ) but no indication that anybody else uses this term. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2009 (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.