Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3-Pentene-1-yne

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. Sandstein 08:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3-Pentene-1-yne

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

This appears to be a disambiguation page, but articles do not exist for the two links in it. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty sure this falls under WP:SPEEDY so this may not even be necessary. Kamalthebest (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you pretty sure this falls under WP:SPEEDY? I don't see a Csd for organic compounds. Afd is the place for this, I'd say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: It'd be G6, specifically pt 2: Deleting a disambiguation page that links to zero articles or to only one extant article and whose title includes "(disambiguation)". -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, I just noticed that it's labeled as a stub, not a disambiguation page. One could make an argument that it's simply mislabeled, since it looks awfully like a dab to me... -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the awkwardly worded G6 guideline suggests to me that it doesn't need to include (disambiguation) if it has zero bluelinks, for G6 to apply? I had to read that sentence several times. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can see the confusion. It's two different scenarios joined by that or. Would it make more sense if it was phrased "Deleting a disambiguation page that links to zero (extant) articles or deleting a disambiguation page that links to only one extant article and whose title includes "(disambiguation)"."? -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we both understand it correctly (?), yes, that was pretty much how I thought it should be worded... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found that bullet point of G6 lacking clarity-wise.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking into the problem, I've found the language at {{db-disambig}} is so much less confusing. I've replaced that bullet point with the language from that template. Fingers crossed, I think the problem has been solved. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I see that Pentene seems to include 1-pentenes and 2-pentenes but apparently not 3-pentenes. Go figure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no 3-pentenes. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless those article get created soon, disambiguation page without an article, really. ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 08:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete. An article such as this would make a suitable {{chemistry index}} page if the linked articles existed or there was compelling evidence that they should be created. But these are not notable chemical compounds and this page serves no purpose. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:G6 (new wording - good job). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry I am responsible for this because I edited it. I failed to create articles, so it's better to delete it. Actually, 3-penten-1-yne exists, with CAS number 2206-23-7. --反殷芳 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 30 March 2017 (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.