Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CJC-1293

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 and redirect. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CJC-1293

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

I PRODed this in April with the following concern: "Does not meet the general notability guideline. It has received only the briefest of mentions in one paper - I can't find any other information on google books or google scholar." It has now been undeleted via WP:REFUND with the creator stating that because it is being sold, we should have an article about it. I've rechecked for sources and no new coverage has appeared. We do not aim to be list every chemical ever synthesised and I am concerned that us having articles on chemicals such as this adds some legitimacy to their use. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Nominator's deletions rationale also seems valid. Potentially interesting and exists, but notable? Does not appear so. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Growth-hormone-releasing hormone other than the one referenced paper, I could find not other reliable sources. It is a steroid being sold both for research and bodybuilding purposes, but I don't see any news stories or other research papers that would contribute to notability. --Mark viking (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Growth-hormone-releasing hormone. There's really very little limit to the number of these sort of analog compounds, and there's going to be very little to say about 99% of them, except that some company developed it, it's an analog to its parent compound, and (for anything remotely related to steroids, especially) there's gray market use. Frankly, a rewrite of the GHRH analog drug development section (probably simply renamed Analogs) could be a useful place to redirect a whole swarm of these stubby articles -- this one, CJC-1295, Sermorelin, and possibly Tesamorelin (although there is a little bit more to say there, admittedly). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good case. Since the compound is verifiable, a redirect is reasonable and is more useful for our users. I've updated my recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually gone ahead and rewritten (and retitled) the target section in Growth-hormone-releasing hormone, although I haven't actually redirected anything there as of yet. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2013 (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.