Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deschloroetizolam


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Deschloroetizolam

 * – ( 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. Deschloroetizolam is not a pharmaceutical drug, but rather a designer drug only sold online. The made-up names "deschloroetizolam" and its purported synonym "diazolam" are intended to sound like the name of a benzodiazepine pharmaceutical, but these names are only used in online recreational drug forums - they are not used in the scientific literature, patent literature, Google Scholar, etc. The first reference is a patent that may mention this chemical compound (I can't find it though), but if so, only as one of about 400 other chemically similar compounds. There is nothing that distinguishes this one from the hundreds of other non-notable ones mentioned. There are no reliable sources (or more specifically WP:MEDRS-compliant sources) from which to build article content. Designer drugs certainly can become notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, but this one is not ... at least not yet. Per WP:N and WP:V this page should be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to be one more attempt to insert non-notable designer drug articles on Wikipedia. When they gather news coverage is soon enough. MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, God damn you all to hell, KEEP. (This molecule, while a "designer drug", is an actually distinct compound with a known structure, not simply a marketing label plastered over something with a different scientific name (let alone a proprietary secret). The precise moment Wikipedia begins deleting "hard science" subjects (in particular chemistry) is the beginning of the end, the long slide into an oblivion full of porn-star articles and bereft of actual knowledge. (Yes: I have seen Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals, and think the very premise of hosing these types of articles is just the most horrible idea ever.). Merge into Designer_drug? A last resort poor precedent (as it will lead to more, and AfDs will proliferate). Delete? *No*. Pax 03:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is not a single source in the article. Instead of looking up TouTube videos, spend time sourcing the article. That you can't seem to add any sources speaks louder than your curses. MicroPaLeo (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pax, your argument is not based in Wikipedia policy. Just because this is "an actually distinct compound", that doesn't make it an acceptable Wikipedia topic.  It must meet the notability and verifiability guidelines just like the pornstar articles you complain about.  ChemNerd (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete this and all the others. Non-notable chemical with no literature references of any depth. If we had an article for literally every molecule that's ever been synthesized, we'd be drowning in them. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is nothing notable about this chemical compound and there are no reliable sources to use to write an article with verifiable content.  ChemNerd (talk) 14:18, 24 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.