Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicoracetam


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Nicoracetam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All chemicals compounds must meet the general notability guideline. This is not a notable chemical compound. There are zero references in PubMed and nothing about the compound found in SciFinder. A google search doesn't turn up anything more than database listings and unreliable websites (such as recreational drug use discussion forums). In light of WP:RS and WP:V, there is nothing more that can be said about this than it merely exists. ChemNerd (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 14:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - adding to ChemNerd's analysis, it does receive 13 Google Scholar hits, but they are all patent applications that mention it in passing, usually just naming it among long lists of tested drugs. That a compound exists is insufficient, as per ChemNerd.  Likewise, the second paragraph appears to be a WP:NOR violation (i.e. the editor is likely reporting that they didn't find any papers, rather than having a source for the non-existence of papers but failing to provide it). Agricolae (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: This compound gets fourteen hits for scholarly articles. The fact that it’s a widely tested drug earns this subject an individual article. It is also mentioned in textbooks such as Drug Therapy in Old Age and Generalized Non-Convulsive Epilepsy: Focus on GABA-B Receptors, both of which are academic in nature. Carajou (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But that's not what the searches actually show. For the Google Scholar search the result is not 14 scholarly papers, but 13 matches (at least not when I click the link given by Carajou), and every single one of them is hosted at Google Patents - they are all patents.  A patent application is essentially a self-published document, not a WP:RS.  This does not represent 'widely tested', nor would such lists of a hundred drug names qualify all of them as notable.  Likewise with the books, what precisely are they supposed to say about the subject?  When I search for nicoracetam within Drug Therapy in Old Age on both Google Books and HathiTrust, I am told the term does not appear at all.  The same is true for Generalized Non-Convulsive Epilepsy (not available on Hathi).  A Google Books search sometimes returns works that do not contain the search terms, just being what the Google algorithm considers relevant - if you click on the match and it tells you there are 1-0 matches (snippet) or takes you to the title page (preview) it means the search term doesn't really appear there.  If this is the best that can be done in terms of finding a basis for notability, it proves the opposite. Agricolae (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'd want to see at least some peer-reviewed studies (even primary) before considering it as a stub. This seems to fail the fairly low bar chemicals have for being notable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. It’s better that general readers gain info from Wikipedia than drug forums.--Davidcpearce (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Without a single WP:RS in sight for 9 years, what makes it better? Agricolae (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, good - and occasionally even better - material can be found on drugs, including the racetams, on the forums. But Wikipedia should be a consistently trustworthy and encyclopaedic resource, which alas can’t be said of forum postings. --Davidcpearce (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ideally this is what Wikipedia should be, which alas can't be said of a Wikipedia page completely devoid of reliable sources (for 9 years). Agricolae (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no info in the article for general readers to gain. TimBuck2 (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. What information is this supposed to convey other than it exists? This is context- and essentially content-free directory listing. --Calton | Talk 16:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Without content, or reliable sources from which to add content, this article is unsuitable for Wikipedia at this time.  Even the most basic aspects of notability and verifiability are far from being met.  TimBuck2 (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I could only find listings in dbs which are programmatically generated, so it does seem a shame, but failing GNG there's no other option. Widefox ; talk 01:21, 1 March 2018 (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.