Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kairine


 * 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. Michig (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Kairine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is simply not a notable chemical compound. Although there a couple of passing mentions in the scientific literature and apparently a listing in a book about the etymology of some chemical names, none of these sources are about the subject of this article. The only report that I can find where kairine gets even moderate attention (Antipyretics of the tetrahydroquinoline series, Bockmuhl, M.; Dorzbach, E. Med. u. Chem. (1942), 4, 179-212) is 75 years old and claims kairine has a different chemical structure than what is described in the article (ethylhydroxytetrahydroquinoline rather than methylhydroxytetrahydroquinoline). None of the references I could find have an author named Fischer, the supposed discoverer of this chemical according to our article. Overall, the subject of this article fails WP:Notability and the content fails WP:Verifiability and therefore this article should be deleted. ChemNerd (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete - Per ChemNerd; neither useful nor interesting. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep on "once notable, always notable" grounds. In the late 19th century, kairine say use as an antipyretic. In the literature of the day, the methyl derivative was referred to as kainine m and the ethyl form as kairine a or kainine e; the latter apparently the more widely used in pharmacology. It has substantial side effects, and evidently was primarily used to treat typhoid fever, before being largely supplanted by antipyrine (phenazone) and then, of course, aspirin. Nevertheless, it was discussed fairly widely in the medical literature of the time:
 * Likely the best of the references, clarifying the methyl/ethyl issue and detailing side effects:
 * Providing details of its development, including the scientist responsible (Otto Fischer at the University of Munich):
 * And, although it's a relatively trivial mention, one modern source describing kairine as "one of the first planned synthesis of a drug":
 * Considerable other options from 19th century literature are available, as well as a few mentions in the literature of the past, say, 30 years. The stub needs cleaned up, clarified, and improved, but I think there's adequate material to warrant retention. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's great! I guess my literature search failed to extend back to the 1800s. I think this certainly addresses the notability issue.  Can you please update the article with what you have found to address the verifiability issues and possible confusion over the identity of the chemical structure?  ChemNerd (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Plan to. I'm going to take another spin through searches to see if I can find anything else before jumping into a rewrite, but it's on my to-do list. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep per Squeamish Ossifrage. Worth noting that many drugs considered outdated and obsolete in rich western countries often continue to be used in parts of the third world, so if this has validated medical use as an antipyretic it is certainly notable. Meodipt (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2016 (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.