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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flubromazolam[edit]

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

Consensus at WP:PHARM and WP:CHEMS is that chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is not a notable chemical compound. Flubromazolam is not a pharmaceutical drug, but rather a designer drug only sold online. The made-up name "Flubromazolam" is intended to sound like the name of a benzodiazepine pharmaceutical, but it is only used in online recreational drug forums - it is not used in the scientific literature, patent literature, Google Scholar, etc. The first reference is a patent that mentions this chemical compound, but only as one in a large number of other similar compounds. There is nothing that distinguishes this one from the many other non-notable ones mentioned. There are no reliable sources (or more specifically WP:MEDRS-compliant sources) to support the article content. Designer drugs certainly can become notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, but this one is not ... at least not yet. Per WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH this page should be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete for the same reasons, all of these. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This information is true.Obelix (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an entirely insufficient argument for keeping an article. Topics must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and the content must be verifiable. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all the other "research chemicals" that nobody is actually researching. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails wp:v as no link to the patent application, and wp:GNG as it is not covered by any independent sources. BakerStMD T|C 17:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Ed --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2015 (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.