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. Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naphthalene-1,5-dione (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)

Previous Draft that was promoted to mainspace on the arguments that it could survive XfD. No claim of Notability, No way to verify any potential claims of notability because it's 100% unreferenced. Article consists of a 8 word prose and a bunch of template information that appears to be procedurally generated as predicted properties and predicted spectra graphs. Was originally developed in mainspace, then sent down to Draft namespace in May of 2016 (when it was cited for lacking a notability claim, was an orphan, and did not cite any sources). A user decided to promote this page out of Draft because "Preventing out of hand deletion of a promising draft". Author of the page last edited in September 2017. Last substantial improvement to this page was in August 2016. I do not accept Draftification as we've already done that dance only to have the page end up back here no better than it was before it was Draftified.

CC Users (Eddie123e—Ra0808—Pichpich—Wgolf—Frietjes—ChemNerd—Godric on Leave—Legacypac—Chenzw—Godsy) who have interacted with this page in a substantial way. Hasteur (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure why folks are wringing hands about this junker, surely there are more important things to deal with than a flakey looking article by an absentee infrequent editor. I already explained that the compound and the article are not notable for the following reasons: "(1) It is unknown. (2) a substituted derivative has been described but even that report is lightly cited (i.e. no one cares) (Synthesis of a 1,5-naphthoquinone Schmand, H. L. K.; Boldt, P. Journal of the American Chemical Society (1975), 97(2), 447-8.) (3) the compound has attracted a grand total of 39 citations (4) this draft contains very little content." A lot of the content is very low quality but I doubt that many editors outside of the chemistry project are in a position to judge the situation. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Smokefoot. Double sharp (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a substance that has not been made, and not notable thanks to no selective publications. I nearly tagged this as a hoax before, but the information was calculated on the ChemSpider web site. Note that ChemSpider appearance does not help towards notability or even show it exists. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete my interaction was submitting it to AFC along with a bunch of other pages tagged as "promising draft" so they could get feedback on why they were acceptable or not.I have no idea how to evaluate it but it was declined at AFC and I believe the detailed analysis provided above. Yet another example of why "promising draft" should be one person's opinion without any special powers. Should have gone G13 a long time ago Legacypac (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy to User:Spinningspark/Naphthalene-1,5-dione which would likely prevent deletion for as long as Spinningspark remains active giving them ample time to personally improve it or seek collaboration on it. Clearly not ready for the mainspace. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What magic do you think that Userfication is going to help with that hasn't been done in two years? All Spinningspark did was promote (with exceedingly poor judgement) an proseless and unreferenced content that does not establish a credible claim of notability. Userfication is inappropriate as the promotion was ill considered at best and pointy at the worst. Hasteur (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NODEADLINE. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Glad you agree with my view (RE View 1: Don't rush to create articles) Hasteur (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are better ways to spend the time than trying to develop this page. There would be more than 10,000 chemical articles that remain unwritten on actually notable topics. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am not an experimental chemist and my organic chemistry is rusty, but have I got this right? The compound has not been synthesised. The list of properties are just estimates. The spectra therefore must be false. If that is correct, this article should be speedy deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Besides the apparent hypotheticality, the mroe imrpotant problem is that there's no claim for notability. Why would anyone even care what this compound would be like? Mangoe (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I pulled this out of G13 on the basis of this ChemSrc page which does give a synthesis route for the chemical referenced to this peer reviewed paper. If that is correct, several delete !votes here have been made on an invalid premise. If that is not correct, then I defer to those who know more on the subject than me. There is also this paper which contains the sentence "Based on this scheme, the first step is the formation of 1,5DAN ox which can then be hydrolyzed to naphthalene-1,5-dione", but that is only from a snippet, I can't read the full context. SpinningSpark 14:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a physicist, not a chemist, but reading the latter reference, it looks like naphthalene-1,5-dione is synthesized as an intermediate step of the reaction they implemented (a green chemistry production of 4-imino-4H-dibenzo[a,h]phenoxazin-11-ol from 1,5-diaminonapthalene). XOR'easter (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is not a notable chemical compound even if the sparse references to it in the scientific literature are verified. There is simply a lack of significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. As a extremely minor tautomer of 1,5-Dihydroxynaphthalene, it could be redirected there (tautomers are generally considered to be the same chemical compound). ChemNerd (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't thin they are tautomers. The supposed synthesis path should also produce an H₂ molecule, unless my count is off. So I do not think a redirect is in order. Mangoe (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: You're right, I missed the difference in oxidation state. I've struck that part of my comment - this page shouldn't redirect. Thanks for catching my error. ChemNerd (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet GNG. If a page existed at dioxynaphthalene or naphthalenedione, it could be a redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:14, 20 June 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.