Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3,4-Dichlorobicyclo(3.2.1)oct-2-ene

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 no consensus. though a Merge (somewhere) looks like the best idea.... Black Kite 10:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3,4-Dichlorobicyclo(3.2.1)oct-2-ene[edit]

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

This chemical compound does not meet notability criteria outlined at WP:N. A search of the chemistry literature shows that this chemical compound does not have any notable use. It is not the subject of any publication, scientific or otherwise. The fact that it is an intermediate in the synthesis of bicyclo[3.2.1]octan-2-one (a compound which is itself does not have a Wikipedia article) is mere trivia - there are literally millions of chemical compounds which are described in the chemical literature whose only purpose was to be an intermediate on the way to something more interesting. There is no reason to have articles on such chemical compounds. ChemNerd (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is at least one source where bicyclo [3.2.1] octenyl halides are the subject of a paper: [1]. Can be the article moved/merged to the end result of the reactions where it is usually used, however? --Cyclopia ^talk 18:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No CID AFAIK FWIW: I tried to look this up in chemical db at pubmed, no luck but sometimes it misses things. There were 200 some dichlorobicyclo compounds but nothing like this. These are closest ,

CID11120418, Diethyl 7,7-dichlorobicyclo[4.1.0]heptane-3,4-dicarboxylateIUPAC: diethyl 7,7-dichlorobicyclo[4.1.0]heptane-3,4-dicarboxylateMW: 309.185620 | IUPAC: 3,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.1.0]hexa-1(6),2,4-triene; 1-[3-(dimethylaminomethyl)-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinolin-1-yl]ethanone; 1-[3-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-3,4-dihydro-2H-isoquinolin-1-yl]ethanone;

IUPAC: 3,4-dichlorobicyclo[4.2.0]octa-1,3,5-triene-8-carbonitrileMW:

3,4-dichlorobicyclo[4.2.0]octa-1,3,5-triene-7,8-dioneMW: 201.006280 | MF:

$ more xxx | grep "3.2.1" 2,2-Dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]octane, CID549089 ...IUPAC: 2,2-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]octaneMW: 179.086880 | MF: C8H12Cl2 NSC148271, CID287989 ...IUPAC: 2,3-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-eneMW: (1S,2R,4S,5R)-2,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-6-en-3-oneMW: 191.054520 | MF: IUPAC: (1S,2R,4S,5S)-2,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-6-en-3-oneMW: 191.054520

(1S,2S,5R,6S)-2,3-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-ene-6-carboxylateMW: IUPAC: (2R,4S,5S)-2,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-6-en-3-oneMW: 191.054520 | IUPAC: (1R,2R,4S,5R)-2,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-6-en-3-oneMW: 191.054520

IUPAC: (1R,2R,4R,5S)-2,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-6-en-3-oneMW: 191.054520

(1R,2R,4S,5S)-2,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-6-en-3-oneMW: 191.054520 | MF: NSC148271, CID11275343IUPAC: (1S,5R)-2,3-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-eneMW:

(1R,2R,5R,7S)-2,3-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-ene-7-carboxylateMW: 1-butylsulfanyl-7,7-dichlorobicyclo[4.1.0]heptaneMW: 253.231620 | MF: (2R,4S,5R)-2,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-6-en-3-oneMW: 191.054520 | MF: 2,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-6-en-3-oneMW: 191.054520 | MF: C8H8Cl2O

Is there something this illustrates or does or is it notable for being excluded from a list of halo-bicycles? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better to look at Gscholar or ISI than Pubmed. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when I created the article (quite a while ago) I was under the - incorrect - impression that all chemical compounds were considered inherently notable. I have tried to look for additional sources since then and haven't been able to find any, the source that is given is somewhat questionable. Guest9999 (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe it'll forever remain a stub, but who knows? So long as it's factually correct, I see no real harm in keeping it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and then think of a merge) per Rifleman 82. Agree with you. Maybe we could discuss about a better target to keep the information, like an article on the bicyclooctatrienes, but there is plenty of WP:RS covering the subject somehow, so no reason not to have it for now. --Cyclopia^talk 11:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe I'm missing something, but if content doesn't meet notability guidelines, wouldn't it be against Wikipedia policy to keep it, just because it is accurate? ChemNerd (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it doesn't meet a guideline, it is not (necessarily) against a policy. It is against policy if it is against policy. Policies and guidelines are two distinct things. That said, the compound somehow technically passes WP:N, since it is cited in dozens of academic papers, that are considered usually WP:RS. --Cyclopia ^talk 09:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Also: The notability criterion is somewhat of a tautology- if there isn't enough noted about it there isn't enough to put in a decent article. So, even if they have inherent notability but no sources, what can you put into the article? Most of the inherent things like commercial broadcast stations at least have primary sources that you can turn to, here there is nothing unless you want to include a description of the consituent elements and describe the electron distirubtion in each bond or otherwise engage in writing a review article. I'm not even sure it is a particularly interesting intermediate- some may illustrate a reaction mechanism, or be unusually stable or have some attribute people have written about. It doesn't even seen to have been noted for being absent in a family of related compounds or unnoted. Does it have a lobbiest group or other advocacy or fan club? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it comes up in patents in connection to zeolites or something, skimming ghits. If you can concot an inherent notability finding and dig out enough info from primary sources without doing OR ( the papers that reference this topic point to or note its unique features, " the only chemical that makes this possible" or " prototype of a class" etc). Not clear from article what this stuff is or who cars bout it. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To the best of my knowledge WP:N was created to keep a check on vanity articles of persons, organization, products etc. A chemical compound, structural formula, visualization, various phys-chem properties - presuming straight pass for WP:V - perfectly qualifies as relevant info. Whether it warrants its own article, or if the info should be merged somewhere else with a redirect, is really not something we should waste our time on at AfD. And with Google, either outcome has ultra-marginal impact on the usefulness of the encyclopedia. Straight out deletion of the info would be detrimental, but that is not really what is being discussed here, is it? (btw, I'm impressed with Nerdseeksblonde's research work) Power.corrupts (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was created to prevent Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information of all kinds, ensuring it remains an encyclopedia. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And we're not talking of indiscriminate collection. We're talking of things backed up by reliable sources, that's exactly what an encyclopedia should cover. --Cyclopia ^talk 09:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate information can still appear in reliable sources, it doesn't make it encyclopedic. Telephone directories, electoral roles and OS maps are all WP:RS, but they don't qualify things for notability. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: One more hypothetical question ... Chemical Abstracts lists over 100 million chemical compounds, all of which come from the chemical literature, i.e. WP:RS, reliable sources. Would it be acceptable for any (or all) of those chemical compounds to have Wikipedia articles? I just want to get a handle on how Wikipedia's guidelines/policies should be applied here. From the replies above, it seems the answer is "yes". ChemNerd (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My very personal opinion is a resounding yes. We're not paper, we can do it, there are RS: why not? --Cyclopia ^talk 09:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One entry in a chemistry database does not "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject" make. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Database? There are several academic papers talking about it. I'd prefer an article on the general family of compounds of course, but it's not "one entry". Do not confuse the rhetorical question above with the RS discussing it. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a non-notable chemical (yes such things exist). The article is also excessively short and contains no useful information. Modest Genius ^talk 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect if that's all that can be said about it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#Directory and per statements of the article creator themselves above. There is not any substantial coverage of this substance in any reliable sources beyond one minor mention in a total synthesis article and a few entries in exhaustive chemical databases. This does not amount to much more than a name which appears in a phone book paired with a marriage anouncement in a newspaper. There is nothing here to hang an article on. --Jayron32 07:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.