Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DHSA


 * 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. The (quite valid) question of renaming the article can continue at the article Talk page. joe deckertalk to me 22:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

DHSA

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Non-notable chemical substance. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Found 50 hits in scholar. Not sure what the criteria is for chemicals, but pretty sure it isn't the same as for BLP.  Would seem that if it exists and someone has documented the chemical, that is notable enough to have an article in an encyclopedia.  Refraining from !voting simply from a lack of experience in notability cases for chemicals, but wanted to make the point of the references found.  Dennis Brown (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - chemicals that are of scholarly interest, and are well-attested to the degree this has been, should be considered notable. We have deleted non-notable chemicals before, though this is not one of those. Currently, the stub is basically original research and may need incubation or rescue. FWIW, I got an A in biochemistry 25 years ago. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – subject of multiple peer reviewed articles (now added to article) and a crystal structure of this compound in complex with an enzyme that degrades it has been determined . This particular chemical is interesting since it is a product of cholesterol metabolism by the bacteria that causes tuberculosis.  Inhibiting the production degradation of this metabolite may provide a treatment for tuberculosis. Boghog (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: there must be hundreds of thousands (millions?) of chemicals turning up in the WP:PRIMARY chemistry literature. Lacking secondary or tertiary sources demonstrating interest beyond very narrow technical specialists, this topic lacks the notability required for an article. The lack of such sources also render the article largely incomprehensible jargon, of little interest to a wider readership. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – in turn cites   that both mention DHSA, that makes the former a secondary source.  Boghog (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Both are primary research articles -- not review articles, chemistry textbooks or similar, that would count as WP:SECONDARY. Primary research articles frequently cite other primary research articles. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Secondary_source: A survey of previous work in the field in a primary peer-reviewed source is secondary. There is no difference between the introduction of peer reviewed primary source and a review article. Both summarize previous work in the field and both are peer reviewed. Boghog (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And what does the "survey" in this "primary peer-reviewed source" of this "previous work" have to say about DHSA? Little, if anything, I would suspect. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually quite a bit. You should read it.  Boghog (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But more relevantly, how much of what any of these "primary peer-reviewed source[s]" have to say about DHSA (in their survey or elsewhere), would be in the least bit comprehensible to the average reader? This is one important reason to steer well clear of primary research literature. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. There is no requirement that every Wikipedia article be understandable to the average reader.  Just a request that the lead is understandable. Boghog (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is a stub, so the article is the lead. And it is hard to see what purpose an incomprehensible-except-to-a-few-specialists article would serve. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RUBBISH: the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion. This article could easily be made understandable to wide audience by including the relevance to tuberculosis infections. The fact the article currently does not contain this information is not a valid justification for deletion. Boghog (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I reject that WP:RUBBISH is relevant. The problem is not that this is a "Poorly written article" that may be 'cleaned up' -- the problem is that ALL the information we have on the topic is "incomprehensible-except-to-a-few-specialists", which CANNOT HELP but result in "an incomprehensible-except-to-a-few-specialists article", without some fairly heavy WP:SYNTH, or outright WP:OR, to explain it to a non-technical audience. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How did you come to the conclusion that all the information is incomprehensible? Boghog (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the article contains NOTHING except DENSE SCIENTIFIC JARGON -- and generally specialist jargon at that. This renders it "incomprehensible-except-to-a-few-specialists". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing what is currently contained in the article vs. what it could contain.  The information that we have on this topic is from a number of publications in the scientific literature.  What is currently contained in the article is a small fraction of the available information on the topic. The article has been rewritten so that it is now understand to a wide audience.  Certainly the clarity could be improved further but I think the article now clearly shows that this technical topic can be presented in an understandable way.  Boghog (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and expanded the article a bit to include more information on the possible therapeutic relevance (inhibiting its oxidation may be useful for treating tuberculosis infections). Boghog (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And your additions have done nothing whatsoever to make it in the slightest bit comprehensible to a non-specialist audience. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, an article that is not understandable by a wide audience is not a valid justification for its deletion. But regardless, I have made further modifications to the point where I think most people would now agree that it is at least somewhat understandable to a non-specialist audience. Boghog (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I would point out that Secondary_source is an article, not a policy, guideline or similar -- in fact it explicitly states "For the use of this term in Wikipedia's policies, see No original research." Therefore it is the latter, not the former, that controls what is considered a primary or secondary source in terms of Wikipedia policy (including how this relates to notability). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The No original research policy links to the secondary source article and therefore the article is used to help interpret the policy. Boghog (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;Shouldn't this article be called "3,4-DHSA"?&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree the article probably should be renamed. Boghog (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added two templates to the talk page. Please add this AfD to those areas, Medicine and Molecular and Chemical Biology. Only experts are likely to know how notable and/or important this chemical is, so we should give them some opportunity to know about the AfD. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename per Boghog.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bearian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep chemical of scholarly interest. Nergaal (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep a chemical of biochemical and medical interest.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2011 (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.