This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
"Substitution (chemistry)" is nearly completely devoid of relevant information, and what is there is already on this article. Maybe consider for deletion? As for the others, they are short enough that together they could comprise one full, good article. It makes no sense for this article to have sections labelled n, e, and radical substitutions, while all the relevant, detailed information lies in other articles elsewhere. I'm not sure on this, but are the three substitutions rxns related? If so, then they should definitely be incorporated into one article. If not, then IMO this article should be considered for deletion as it is misleading, small, and redundant. Thoughts? --Malachirality 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Each substitution type should have their own article. These are big topics, despite the currently short articles. Entire books have been written about each of the substitution types and mechanisms! --Itub 13:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I have executed the merge. V8rik (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)