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 02:25, 15 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]
  - If you look at, for example, Category:Organic compound stubs you'll find that a quite a large percentage of these articles have references, but only primary source references. This is the typical state for short science-related articles. It is standard practice to create (and keep) these types of articles, which may not be adequately captured in Wikipedia:Notability. This is why I don't think it is a sufficient argument to delete a science article just because it relies on the primary scientific literature for support. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Has this practice actually been confirmed via an AFD or an RfC or something? Under my reasoning presented here every one of those articles could be deleted or at least merged into one giant article about obscure organic hydrocarbons (to give an arbitrary example). flaming () 02:25, 15 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]

Keep all obviously I'm a bit biased as the creator of most of these pages, but there is a lot of established precedent here that these kind of compounds are sufficiently notable for their own pages. Several of them are being widely sold around the world as "designer drugs" and of these at least 25I-NBOMe (which has caused several overdoses in the USA) and 25C-NBOMe (which has been found sold as a designer drug in New Zealand and placed into Class C on this basis), have been mentioned in newspaper articles, which seem to be the kind of secondary sources that are being asked for here. Anything which has been added to the illegal drugs list and there are people in prison for selling or possessing it, can I think be assumed to be notable! The others are all of a similar nature, and it is highly likely that these will continue to become increasingly more notable over time, and probably all be Schedule I drugs within 10 years. Sure this can be disputed per WP:CRYSTAL but I'd argue that the compounds are notable enough as scientific curiosities already, and recreational (ab)use of them will only increase this. If they are deleted, they will inevitably be re-created at some stage with very similar content. Meodipt (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Anything which has been added to the illegal drugs list and there are people in prison for selling or possessing it, can I think be assumed to be notable!" (on this note, 25C-NBOMe and 25I-NBOMe perhaps may indeed be notable, for this reason I will remove these from the AFD, since they are the only compounds I can see that have any sort of documentation. Other than 25C-NBOMe, none of these are scheduled, nor do any of these have people prosecuted for possession etc.)

In addition, you mention that all the others are of similar structure, but I will here bring up WP:CRYSTAL (as you predicted) and say that while these may be notable in the future, they are definitely not of note right now. They are not "notable enough as scientific curiosities" because they do not have any secondary sources to back them up (ergo, not WP:NOTEable). Find some secondary sources that say they are, and then they will be. flaming () 01:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2C-G adding. I have added 2C-G to the AFD here because it has the same issue as the others here, it only appears in a primary source (scientific literature i.e. PiHKAL). flaming () 02:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and also Ganesha (psychedelic), and Beatrice (psychedelic), same reason (PiHKAL only). flaming () 02:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 **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)
 ***If you look at, for example, [[:Category:Organic compound stubs]] you'll find that a quite a large percentage of these articles have references, but only primary source references.  This is the typical state for short science-related articles.  It is standard practice to create (and keep) these types of articles, which may not be adequately captured in [[Wikipedia:Notability]].  This is why I don't think it is a sufficient argument to delete a science article just because it relies on the primary scientific literature for support.  -- [[User:Edgar181|Ed]] ([[User talk:Edgar181|Edgar181]]) 13:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
+****Has this practice actually been confirmed via an AFD or an RfC or something? Under my reasoning presented here every one of those articles could be deleted or at least merged into one giant article about obscure organic hydrocarbons (to give an arbitrary example). [[User:Flaming|flaming]] [[User talk:Flaming|()]] 02:25, 15 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)