Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flubromazepam


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Flubromazepam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Known chemical, but completely lacking any pharmacological data from reliable sources. Apparently Allegedly a street drug, but again, no reliable sources to document this. Boghog (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 17:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and remove unsourced content immediately. The article seems to be original research. I was unable to find a single reference on Google news, Google books, HighBeam, Newsbank, Credo and JSTOR. I'm not even sure it actually exists. - MrX 17:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It exists:. It does seem to be incredibly new and barely defined though. I can't personally see this being notable yet - I believe it fails WP:TOOSOON (and thus, by extension, WP:GNG) Lukeno94 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It definately exists. Administred it intravenously to myself a few days ago and it had characteristics easily seperable from the 15-20 other benzodiazepines I know. Still a benzo though, not THET different. --Katzenudeln (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I concede that it exists. I am convinced. The article will still be deleted unless it is brought up to Wikipedia's inclusion standards in the next several days. - MrX 20:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comment above. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It IS a street drug, hence no scientific sources. Should it be ignored then? Lot's of people use it, and in the sake of harm reduction there should be an article about it and everyone involved in the pharma-part of Wikipedia should add facts as soon ass reliable sources occour and knowledge evolve. Every other benzodiazepine known to man has a WP-page, why not this? As you all know, you are free to improve it. Deletion would just be contraproductive at best in my opinion.  --Katzenudeln (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, considering the changes that now have been made, theres no redundancy over the main benzodiazepine article. Good, that's how a should have done it in the first place. End of discussion? --Katzenudeln (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Documentation that a substance is a street drug does not need to be scientific, but it does need to be reliable. Also a very large number of benzodiazipines have been synthesized (probably on the order of tens of thousands), but only a small fraction of these (those that have documented pharmacological activity) have Wikipedia articles. The existence of a substance in itself is not notable.  It needs also to have a notable application such as being a drug, pesticide, dye, reagent, research tool, etc. and this application needs to be documented by reliable sources. Boghog (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't necessarily need scientific sources, just reliable sources (news, magazines, journals, books). Wikipedia is not a place to dispense medical advice or original thought. Did you happen to read any of the helpful links at the top of the edit page when you created the article? - MrX 20:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, arguing on the internet is like competing in the paralympics. No offence if any of you did compete. My intentions were the best, trying to contribute to human knowledge being one of the first humans exposed to the substance, let alone intravenously. In my opinion Wikipedia becomes useless without real sources - that is peer reviewed published articles. If my claims would be more substantial if they were referencing to just about anything I could write a report of my experiences with 60 mg over the last week, but scientifically that would account to fuck all. Let's just leave it there. I'll tell my friends what I've learned and let the rest of you learn by fucking up. As for aquiring knowledge, I'll go for primary sources as opposed to Wikipedia. --Katzenudeln (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Katzenudeln, please calm down. The fact is, we cannot have every single chemical compound known to mankind here, and there are several guidelines that I suggest you read - the most important being WP:GNG and WP:V. In addition, you state "should add facts as soon ass reliable sources occour and knowledge evolve" - which fails WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:TOOSOON, and "Every other benzodiazepine known to man has a WP-page, why not this?" which fails WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Once the reliable sources appear, or in fact any real sources at all, then you can start building up an article. Writing personal attacks aimed at Wiki-editors, plus your remark over the Paralympics, is not going to help your cause. I appreciate your good intentions about this article, but you need to take people's comments in a sensible manner. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. As has been mentioned above, the article does not pass WP:V and will not without reliable sources. Reliable sources are exactly what drug articles need; it may be safer to provide information when none is available but this information must be independently verifiable. §everal⇒|Times 04:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Based on a thorough search of the scientific literature (SciFinder/Chemical Abstracts Service, Reaxys/Beilstein database, etc.) it is clear to me that there is nothing to indicate that this chemical compound meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (it is not notable, at least not yet) and there is no reliable source upon which base verifiable content.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:58, 21 January 2013 (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.