Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2C-TFM: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:27, 13 March 2012

2C-TFM

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not satisfy the notability criteria because it has only been reported in primary sources (and actually, only one primary source). There are no relevant secondary sources available for this particular compound, only a limited number of primary sources such as the paper referenced in addition to anecdotal sources such as "trip reports" and drug-forum. flaming () 06:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the compound in question was never even referred to as "2C-TFM" in the referenced paper, only "2-(2-(2,5-dimethoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)aminoethane. flaming () 06:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same (i.e., only referenced in primary sources):

flaming () 06:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other such articles that have this same problem. They are generally inter-linked with the above articles and I'll be doing my best in the meantime to add all of the relevant ones to this AFD. flaming () 06:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many of the articles listed in this AFD have more than one reference. Personally, I don't think that having only references in the primary scientific literature alone is sufficient grounds for deletion. I suspect that secondary sources for many of these (but perhaps not all) could be found though. I'm not sure all these articles should be grouped together in one AFD. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you not think that only being referenced in scientific journals is enough for deletion? Per WP:NOTE, ""Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." These are not secondary sources. flaming () 05:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:25I-NBOMe, an anonymous contributor left this relevant comment: This compound reported in Virginia as cause for at least 5 overdoses. Our poison control center issued a warning on this drug. Suggest not delete as many may be looking for more info on this drug if overdoses continue. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most of these articles are referenced, and the 2C drugs have fairly common usage to be worth their own articles. Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, yes, they are "referenced", but only in primary sources (i.e., scientific journals). And you seem to be confusing these chemicals with the standard 2C series. Those are quite well documented in external media; these derivatives, however, are not. flaming () 05:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 :{{la|TFMFly}}
 :{{la|2C-C-NBOMe}}
@@ Line 43: / Line 42: @@
 *'''Comment'''.  Many of the articles listed in this AFD have more than one reference.  Personally, I don't think that having only references in the primary scientific literature alone is sufficient grounds for deletion.  I suspect that secondary sources for many of these (but perhaps not all) could be found though.  I'm not sure all these articles should be grouped together in one AFD. -- [[User:Edgar181|Ed]] ([[User talk:Edgar181|Edgar181]]) 15:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
+**Why do you not think that only being referenced in scientific journals is enough for deletion? Per [[WP:NOTE]], ""Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." These are not secondary sources. [[User:Flaming|flaming]] [[User talk:Flaming|()]] 05:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From [[Talk:25I-NBOMe]], an anonymous contributor left this relevant comment: ''This compound reported in Virginia as cause for at least 5 overdoses. Our poison control center issued a warning on this drug. Suggest not delete as many may be looking for more info on this drug if overdoses continue.''  -- [[User:Edgar181|Ed]] ([[User talk:Edgar181|Edgar181]]) 15:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' most of these articles are referenced, and the 2C drugs have fairly common usage to be worth their own articles. [[User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] ([[User talk:Nergaal|talk]]) 21:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
+**Again, yes, they are "referenced", but only in primary sources (i.e., scientific journals). And you seem to be confusing these chemicals with the standard 2C series. Those are quite well documented in external media; these derivatives, however, are not. [[User:Flaming|flaming]] [[User talk:Flaming|()]] 05:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)