Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nifoxipam


 * 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. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Nifoxipam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Consensus at WP:PHARM and WP:CHEMS is that chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is not a notable chemical compound. Nifoxipam is not a pharmaceutical drug, but rather a designer drug only sold online. The made-up name "Nifoxipam" is only used on online recreational drug forums - it does not appear anywhere in the scientific literature, patent literature, Google Scholar, etc. There are no reliable sources (or more specifically WP:MEDRS-compliant sources) to base article content upon. Designer drugs certainly can become notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, but this one is not ... at least not yet. Per WP:N and WP:V, this page should be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This chemical is not independently notable, the name is a neologism, and frankly the appearance of a Wikipedia article in search results for poorly documented recreational research chemicals is best avoided. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete agree with what has been said above. Article appears to relate to a compound which is a pharmacologically active metabolite of the benzodiazepine Flunitrazepam. I agree that in this article the name associated with this compound appears to be taken from its use as novel psychoactive compound, which I presume is therefore not a registered name. Regardless I can't see that this meets WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable and discussed in some forums but not reliable sources. Hajme (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG, no reliable sources. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 19:49, 3 February 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.