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  21:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nippoqualone[edit]

Nippoqualone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I do not believe that this is a notable chemical compound. A thorough search of the scientific literature (Chemical Abstracts, PubMed, etc.) results in no references in any scientific journal. The only mention of this chemical compound that I can find is in a German patent from 1974. The chemical compound is only one of many mentioned in the patent, and there was no follow-up, and there are no citations to this patent in any other patent or journal. Also, there is no use of the name "nippoqualone" in that patent, calling into question the existence of this name. Finally, a Google search on "nippoqualone" turns up nothing more than a couple of mentions in online forums related to recreational drug use. For these reasons this article fails Wikipedia criteria for inclusion based on notability and verifiability. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Chemical compounds are notable just by existing. Add the patent as a reference, and change the article's name if the current name is inappropriate. --Eastmain (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there Wikipedia policy that supports the contention that all chemical compounds are notable just by existing? -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Nippoqualone" not listed in PubChem, ChemFinder, Google Scholar, PubMed, or ISI web of knowledge. I also did a structure search with the chemical structure in PubChem, with no hits and Googled the IUPAC name, also with no results. The CAS number quoted is not valid and gives no results here. I can find no evidence that the compound exists or is known by this name. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the CAS number is valid. It is listed in Chemical Abstracts. NIST just doesn't contain an exhaustive list of all ~100,000,000 chemical compounds with CAS numbers. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So this compound does exist, but there is just nothing published on it under either this name or any other names? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it is published in that one German patent, identified by a systematic chemical name. But nothing else as far as I can find. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Well that covers just about everything Tim. Thanks for all the hard work. Possible hoax? ShoesssS ^Talk 19:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete still stands per nominators reasoning. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just being mentioned in one obscure patent is not sufficient to make a compound notable. There are tens of millions of compounds registered by CAS, and I think not all of them are "inherently notable". --Itub (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nominator's reasoning. Freestyle-69 (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Us wikichem editors tend to be rather inclusionist for chemical compounds, but there are practical limits. It does nothing for our being a verifiable, reliable reference to have unmaintainable articles which nobody can expand or discuss in any meaningful detail. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment since when are German patents "obscure"? And how is this unamintainable3, since, given the registry number, anything else that is published can be found and added. DGG (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I'll strike out obscure. I didn't mean it was obscure because it was German, but because it is old and no one has ever referred to it (at least to the title compound) in a publication indexed by CAS. But something more important is that in principle, I wouldn't trust anything's notability just because it is patented (I would see it as equivalent to saying that a company is notable just because it is incorporated). And second, the lack of notability is clear from the perspective of the the notability guidelines, which strongly suggests the need for multiple, preferably secondary sources. One patent satisfies neither of the criteria. --Itub (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous statements. Name only gives about 5 or 6 google hits, and they're all to obscure, recreational use blogs. This doesn't justify the article's existence at the present time. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain's comments, with his suggestions. Among the methaqualone analogues, it's notable for being patented *and* obscure. ;) (The patent information should be discussed here.) NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to a complete absence of reliable sources that can be used to expand this article. It may be verifiable, but that doesn't mean it should exist. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are hundreds of chemical compounds on wikipedia which are equally obscure, and every day there are articles in the scientific literature about old forgotten drugs which have been found to produce some new useful effect. Wikipedia is a perfect place to archive information about these kind of drugs. Also this compound is currently being sold as a "research chemical" and so there will be people searching for information about it, which in my opinion is enough to justify a wikipedia page. Looking at the votes I can see that I'm on the losing side though! Meodipt (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you could provide evidence that this chemical compound is currently sold and used as a research tool, that would certainly change my thoughts about whether we should keep this article or not. -- Ed (Edgar181) 09:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find any sources listed for it, but that doesn't mean its not on sale; since Operation Web Tryp the vendors have become a lot more circumspect about their marketing practices! "Research chemical" in this instance refers to "recreational drugs which aren't yet illegal" rather than the kind of real research chemicals that Sigma-Aldrich and Tocris sell. Made-up names for drugs annoy me anyway, and word is that this "nippoqualone" isn't a particularly great sedative so I doubt its going to be the new big thing, but still my feeling is that if kids are using it to get high then it is notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page. Meodipt (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that folks may be looking for this, but—if they come here looking for information, we've got to provide information! This isn't like most pharmacology stubs, where the literature is usually a couple of clicks or a trip to the library away and we're just too lazy to expand the article (I am, at least :) This is a situation where there are no sources, so the article can never be more complete or more reliable than it is now, unless somebody starts publishing about this compound. If and when they do, I'll be the first to fight for keeping the article :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The relevant definition is here: research chemical; totally different from what us wikichemists are accustomed to. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thats my point, if this compound is, as reported, being sold as a designer drug, then surely that makes it notable? Meodipt (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree. If there is a reliable source that we can verify that reports this compound being sold as a designer drug, then I think the article should be kept. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not aware of this compound having been detected by the government drug lab that I've had dealings with, and it hasn't been reported in Microgram Bulletin. To be honest, I had seen this compound being talked about on the drug use sites, but personally I didn't think it was notable enough to make a page for it, and I wouldn't care too much if it gets deleted. However the fact that some chemical supplier seems to have found an old patent from the 70s, and simply on the basis that this compound was said to produce effects similar to methaqualone in animals, has manufactured the compound, labelled it with a snappy name suggestive of similarity to methaqualone, and started selling it to the public, is a real concern from a public health standpoint. This particular compound may well not be notable enough to be worth keeping, but the manner in which it has appeared does make me wonder how many more compounds like this are likely to come along. Meodipt (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When I made a page for 4-Methylmethcathinone 6 months ago it was nominated for deletion for the same reasons as this compound has been, and I asked for a reprieve on the grounds that I believed it would become notable and verifiable soon enough. Last Wednesday, 4-MMC finally hit the newspapers as a "new designer drug" in Queensland, Australia, and so the 4-MMC article is now supported by reliable sources. This demonstrates how with these designer drugs, the availability of acceptable references may lag behind the initial appearance of the drug by a considerable period. However this "nippoqualone" looks more likely to just fade into obscurity without ever having suitable references published, so if the consensus of this vote is for delete then perhaps this is for the best. My Keep vote still stands though! Meodipt (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all well and good, but your 4-MMC article should have been deleted in the first place. WP is not meant to be a crystal ball. Articles aren't any better off for having existed in some form before the subject becomes notable. if reliable secondary sources don't cover it now, then it doesn't matter what will happen in the future. Protonk (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When hundreds of people around the world are taking a drug, going to hospital with overdoses, getting arrested by police who then have to decide whether it is legal or not etc, then in my opinion it is notable regardless of whether there are journal articles written about it. Lack of sources may make an article unsuitable for wikipedia because of problems with verifiability, but does not necessarily mean the subject is not notable. Meodipt (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may be confusing the Wikipedia definition of "notability" with the common meaning of the word. The Wikipedia definition is closer to the idea of verifiability than to the idea of importance. Of course this drug, if it is really being taken by hundreds of people and causing trouble, is important. But what can we say about it that is verifiable, when all we have are rumours, web forums, and an old patent, without falling into doing original research ourselves? --Itub (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was referring to Protonk's comment that the 4-MMC article should have been deleted; I felt strongly that one should be kept as the drug was being taken by hundreds of people, used in research etc. This nippoqualone on the other hand doesn't seem to be used to any significant extent. I just feel that the article should be retained because of my general inclusionist views when it comes to chemical compounds, since it has a known structure, known activity, a CAS number, and a patent for reference then thats good enough for me, but I can see why you guys feel that it should be deleted and I'll respect the consensus. Meodipt (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • We don't feel this way for grins or in a vaccuum. The WP definition of notability requires that an article have a secondary source imputing notability to the subject. You seem to think that we have come to some sort of consensus despite a proper reading of the rules. That isn't true. We've come to consensus based on a proper reading of the rules. If this drug has seen ANY published research (even in industry journals), then we can cite it and include it. If not, the policies and guidelines suggest that it be deleted. Protonk (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• While we're at it, what about the majority of those transcluding ((PiHKAL)) and ((TiHKAL))? Most of them have only a *single* reference; I'd say those are arguably just as non-notable. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2008 (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.