Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diversolide


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Diversolide

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable series of compounds (both for laymen and scientists), with only primary sources (two refs from research group that identified it, and I can only find one other article that cites it (and it does not appear to be specifically about these compounds)). Not surprising to have little notability or third-party research or reviews for a chemical whose structure was only published within the past year, but that just means that it's not yet appropriate for a WP article. I suspect author is involved in the reasearch (not bad to have experts, and no evidence of COI bias in content (except lots of copyvio (now cleared I think) from original article, just noting it). DMacks (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  01:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only 11 hits for "diversolide" on Google Scholar, which says the primary ref has only been cited twice. Also I am not a chemist, but the Corrigendum sounds rather serious to me:


 * Also seems relevant that the name "diversolide" seems to have been used in 1982 for something extracted from the same plant (whether one of these same compounds or not I'm not qualified to judge) 10.1007/BF00579664. Qwfp (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. We can't have a new Wikipedia article every time a scientist gets overexcited and coins a new term, only for nobody else to use it. And the Corrigendum is the final nail in the coffin. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per logic of Fences and Windows. Smartse (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2009 (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.