Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copper Ibuprofenate


 * 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. (NAC)   S warm  ( Talk ) 06:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Copper Ibuprofenate

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

PROD contested by article creator. Article is borderline stub-grade about a chemical; on the talk page, article creator openly admits (1) a lack of verifiability and (2) a conflict of interest. Also, article states that little information is available about the chemical -- see WP:HAMMER. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC) 18:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - A Google search turned up several hits, so it may indeed be verifiable. I'll look into it and report back here. PDCook (talk)
 * Keep, the molecule Ibuprofen is an important molecule so also is copper salts can be interesting. The article can be improved.User:Lucifero4
 * Keep Weak keep - based on the following references I found: 1, 2, and 3. You might not be able to review the entire articles if you're not at a University/library, but the abstracts might be viewable. I'll gladly rewrite and properly cite this article in the coming days. PDCook (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - I look forward to a rewrite into a proper encyclopedia article, and will gladly withdraw my AFD nomination once the article is duly expanded, sourced, and de-COI'd. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm currently editing from home so admittedly can only view abstracts, but I'm not seeing that the sources would serve to establish notability -- as opposed to merely confirming that it exists. --RrburkeekrubrR 19:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this compound is not exactly front page news in terms of notability, but I easily found several references for the compound via a Google search (now referenced in the article). The references don't just mention the compound in passing, but are largely about the compound. Several labs seem to have researched it, and it was investigated as both an anti-inflammatory drug and is patented in mixture as a wood preservative. However, my guess is that this would definitely rank "low" on the Wikiproject Chemicals importance scale.
 * Comment I am the creator of this article, and I know this article is substandard. I am reaserching this chemical in my lab, and when I get a large ammount of info about it's properties, I will add the information.The only problem that I am currentely facing is that it (the chemical) will not precipitate properly. By little information avalable, I am refering to the little info on it's properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russellsaccount (talk • contribs)
 * You should be sure that you understand the Wikipedia policy on original research. PDCook (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Pay attention because if the results of your researach are published in wikipedia it's easy for everyone use your results for their own work.User:Lucifero4
 * Comment - Wikipedia articles should be based on published, third-party sources -- not lab results. If no such sources exist, there is nothing to compose the article out of. In addition, without significant coverage in independent sources, the subject is not likely to be considered sufficiently noteworthy to merit a standalone article. --RrburkeekrubrR 22:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I had completely forgotten about No Original Research. The article definitely needs policing to make sure the research isn't published in the encyclopedia. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - After a review of sources available via a Google search (I didn't use SciFinder or search Chemical Abstracts), I found several scholarly articles and patents that suggest this compound isn't entirely obscure. I have not found any coverage in secondary sources, and have thus changed my !vote to weak keep. I also removed information regarding preparation of the compound from the article, as this was unsourced and possibly OR. Several of the references discuss preparation, so if the article is kept, someone add and properly cite such information. I've done what I can with this article, so let the !votes fall where they may. PDCook (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep and expand. I'm not withdrawing the AFD nomination just yet; I'm interested in points of view based on the article's current status.  Thanks very much PDCook for finding the sources. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Upped my non-vote from weak keep to normal keep. I'll probably withdraw the AFD in a day or two.  (And I consider this a good thing.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2010 (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.