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 12:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helquinoline[edit]

Helquinoline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

All chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This one does not. It does not appear in the chemical literature beyond the description of it being identified and in one other short paper (doi:10.1016/j.tet.2014.06.088). A Google search turns up nothing more than routine/automated database listings. There isn't more to be said about this chemical compound than what's written in this one sentence stub. ChemNerd (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nom. Nothing but the original research report and the statement that it is a member of an obscure class of compounds that is itself redlinked. Agricolae (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not just mentioned in the given reference about what it is, or similar sources giving only a simple description. This journal article talks about approaches to helquinoline in the convergence of products and use in reactions, and I see a number of books published about this compound, including [1] and [2]. Leo1pard (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an accurate portrayal of the books in question, which are not even close to being books about this compound. One includes it, in a single mention, among a list of analogues of quinolone (and shows its structure among those of a host of such analogs), but says nothing more about it. The other simply says it has antibacterial activity and names the species it was isolated from, but again provides nothing more than this simple statement. Neither book even gives it a complete sentence. Both are passing references. As to the journal article, it looks to me like nothing more than an organic synthesis paper - this is a way to make it, though the title is rather opaque (and the summary above rather misleading). The intro just states the fact that it has been found to have some antibiotic activity, and that it is racemic, and preparations were contaminated with something else. For this it cites two primary reports, neither of which I can identify without dropping more cash than it is worth. From my perspective, these article and books given by Leo1pard add next to nothing along the lines of sustained detailed coverage (WP:GNG). Agricolae (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Despite the mention in the paper by Stevenson et al., mentioned by both ChemNerd and Leo1pard, it is not significant coverage. Although some science topics are considered automatically notable (all species are considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, for example), individual chemicals are not. The bar of "significant" coverage is clearly not met here. Slideshow Bob (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "It exists" isn't good enough for chemical notability. Reading the above sources and what's at the article, it's really just passing mention at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2018 (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.