Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2C-TFM

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 keep all listed articles. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2C-TFM[edit]

(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]

Keep. 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]
      - Yes, several AFD debates relating to obscure compounds have gone through this discussion before, and there was general consensus that they could be notable without having the kind of secondary sources you ask for. With compounds that are used only for in vitro work in the lab, there are multiple examples of compounds that are many years old, have pages upon pages of PubMed citations that mention them, and are used by hundreds of scientists in laboratories all over the world - yet have never been talked about in a newspaper or secondary source outside the scientific and patent literature. Would you say SKF-82,958 is non-notable for instance? Or SB-242,084? Meodipt (talk) 19:14, 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]

Comment so what kind of secondary sources are you asking for then? There are several recent reviews of the structure-activity relationships of 5HT2A agonists that I could dig out, and a lot of the modelling work being done on the 5HT2A receptor these days is using NBOMe compounds because of the extra binding motif. I just don't accept that something has to have been mentioned in a newspaper in order to be notable. This would be a massive departure from accepted precedent with these kind of obscure drug pages, and there are literally thousands of compounds that could be added to this list for deletion under the strict interpretation you propose. Look at all the pages for pharmaceuticals that never made it to market for instance, many of them have less references than these and are not even currently used in research. But I would definitely argue that the vast majority are nevertheless encyclopedic and valuable content, that should not be deleted. Meodipt (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these substances are widely available online because they are not properly documented. Deleting articles because these compounds need more exposure is like taking your glasses off because it's getting dark. For the sake of harm reduction, it is important that these pages continue existing to provide public information that is a simple search away! As was stated above, there are plenty of other obscure pages that have never been mentioned in a newspaper.. It would seem that you are singling these drug pages out! May I ask what is your motive in doing so? Enix150 (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When it comes down to it this is simply a matter of pedanticalness. There is no actual logical reason why these articles should be removed nor would there be any sort of benefit to doing so (quite the opposite in reality). A lot of work went into them and they are a valuable and easily-accessible source of what would otherwise be very obscure information. Simply because there are no secondary sources available for them at this point in time does not mean we should act like the chemicals in question don't exist. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 19:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment have a look at WP:What "Ignore all rules" means, any kind of policy debates should ultimately be looked at in terms of whether they help or harm the Wikipedia project overall. Taking a strict and literal interpretation of the guidelines in WP:NOTE and applying it more generally, to determine the fate of pages that fall within a class determined by prior consensus to be subject to slightly lower standards of notability, is not appropriate. Your proposal would open the way for deletion of thousands of similar articles on obscure chemical compounds, and there is no question that this would be damaging to the aims of the project. Sure I will concede that some of those pages you have nominated like 2CBCB-NBOMe, are perhaps of little notability for now and might struggle to pass AfD if nominated individually. But that doesn't mean you can just nominate 15 of them at once, with a broad and general argument that could apply to thousands of other pages as well. Meodipt (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'd note that I found 4 articles referring to the originally nominated compound as 2C-TFM with a quick search of Google Scholar, one of which was a review article (i.e. a secondary source), and I have added this to the 2C-TFM page as a reference. So it is absolutely not true to say that it is referenced in only a single primary source. Meodipt (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2012 (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.