Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clonazolam


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 18:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Clonazolam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Consensus at WP:PHARM and WP:CHEMS is that chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is not a notable chemical compound. Clonazolam is not a pharmaceutical drug, but rather a designer drug only sold online. The made-up names "Clonazolam" and "Clonitrazolam" are intended to sound like the names of benzodiazepine pharmaceuticals, but they are only used on online recreational drug forums - they do not appear anywhere in the scientific literature, patent literature, Google Scholar, etc. The first two references in the article mention this chemical compound, but only as one in a large number of other similar compounds. There is nothing that distinguishes this one from the many other non-notable ones mentioned. The rest of the references (currently numbers 3 through 7) do not even mention this compound - they are general references about benzodiazepines that support text that is about benzodiazepines in general, not about this compound in particular. There are no reliable sources (or more specifically WP:MEDRS-compliant sources) to suggest that any claims of effects in humans are anything but speculation. Designer drugs certainly can become notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, but this one is not ... at least not yet. Per WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH this page should be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * delete Original research. MicroPaLeo (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  18:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  18:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Article appears to relate to a compound which is a benzodiazepine metabolite or derivative. The name associated with this compound appears to be a neologism, taken from its use as novel psychoactive compound, and I presume is therefore not a registered name. I can't find reliable sources and can't see anything to suggest that this meets WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I checked the references also, and confirm that they do don't contain mentions to Clonazolam specifically, but rather are just descriptions of benzos generally. I wonder if it is worth mentioning it at Benzodiazepine misuse where there is a list already. BakerStMD T&#124;C 17:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , you say "they do contain", but the context of your statement suggests you meant "they do not contain". Can you clarify, please?  -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, sorry, meant that they do NOT contain. Hoisted by my own petard, as it were. BakerStMD T&#124;C 18:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, should not be added to the other article, complete OR does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. MicroPaLeo (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The name is a neologism, the best the references can do is support that this molecule has been synthesized, but not that it's independently notable. I removed the external link to synthesis information on erowid. Anyone who really wants homemade benzos should at least be committed enough to read the original papers/patents. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * do not delete, the erowid link that was removed in a recent edit by a deletion advocate was a web page published in 2004, 11 years ago, and identifies clonitrazolam by name. I believe this satisfies WP:GNG. Furthermore, I believe anything that could be construed as violating WP:OR has been removed from the article already. Lastly, the lack of WP:MEDRS compliant compounds on Wikipedia would immediately condemn hundreds of psychoactive compounds to deletion, as they are not in current medical use. Many such pages make it from two-sentence blurbs with a research codename for a title up to fully-fledged medicinal pages with the concession that they are stubs, yes, but should not be deleted. Brandonazz (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG depends on "significant coverage in reliable sources" and I don't think a single webpage on a highly specialized website that relies on user-generated content satisfies this requirement. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:22, 16 February 2015 (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.