Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Direct brown 138


 * 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. I'll be happy to restore to draft on request should someone wish to improve it. Michig (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Direct brown 138

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Existence does not equate to notability. Single reference is to a web page showing molecular formula and giving chemical details. Article needs references to non-trivial discussion of the subject in independent reliable sources. KDS 4444 Talk  02:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    07:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Move to Draft:Direct brown 138. A brief search of the chemical literature indicates that this compound probably meets the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) as is required for all articles about chemical compounds.  But clearly the article is not acceptable in its current nearly empty state.  Moving it to Draft space will allow the article's creator and/or other editors to work on it there until it is suitable for Article space.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete or Draft. The lack of any improvement since the article's creation points toward deletion. Bazj (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable as it exists. It would be a trivial task to resurrect what little is here if another editor wished to make a robust article. Single source is commercial and this may be intended as an advertisement.  Velella  Velella Talk 13:02, 8 November 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.