Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saccharine

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 redirect to Saccharin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saccharine[edit]

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

Dictionary definition. Also, "saccharine" is an adjective, not a noun. Neither of the two references support its use as a noun meaning "sweetener" — the first uses it consistently as an adjective, and the second obviously refers to sodium saccharin. —Keenan Pepper 18:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that at the very least Saccharine should redirect to Saccharin, as it did for a peaceful seven years. But wait, it is better if there is an explanation of the relationship between the two words. So, all in all, an article like this seems helpful. Whether some policy statement lurks which supports an argument on these lines, I do not know. If not, a redirect would suffice since Saccharin also explains the terminology. Thincat (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmmm - good points. It does appear to only be used as an adjective, which weakens the case for a separate article. Redirecting to Saccharin as a likely misspelling is a reasonable solution, though it does seem odd when saccharine does actually mean something different.--Kubigula (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is in footnote #2 of Saccharin. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. WP:OR/WP:MADEUP. "Saccharine" is an adjective meaning "sweet" -- AFAIK it has no technical meaning. The nom is correct in saying that the literature mentioned in the article uses the word (a) consistently as an adjective, and (b) as a misspelling of sodium saccharin.-- Radagast 3 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to saccharin, move that footnote #2 up into the body of saccharin by way of explanation -- it's way too obscure as a footnote -- and link to wiktionary. This is a necessary redirect and an important point of information; I, for example, had no idea until just now that there was a spelling difference between the two forms -- I learn new things every day! -- but the term "saccharine" itself will never be more than a dicdef (and an adjective: wikipedia articles are supposed to be about nouns). Baileypalblue (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the redirect (which is what we had!) and agree on some form of rewording of saccharin to clarify the issue. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to saccharin as a {{R from mispelling}} 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to saccharin, merge only if someone can find an example right now of this being a scientific term (a noun). if its just an adjective, redirect. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to saccharin seems to be the best solution. Some kind of redirect template or explanation is needed on the saccarin page, but that can be dealt with as an editorial decision.--Kubigula (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is an obvious wp:dicdef. But it's a reasonable misspelling, especially since it's a real word. Saccharin defines saccharine, so this seems perfect. The footnote is fine as-is. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2010 (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.