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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Penicitrinone E[edit]

Penicitrinone E (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. There is literally nothing more known about this chemical compound than what's written in this one sentence stub. We can say it exists, nothing more. ChemNerd (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also including the following closely-related articles in this nomination for the exact same reason. ChemNerd (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Penicitrinol J

Penicitrinol K

Citrinolactone D

• Delete The article was created because 4 new compounds were isolated in the paper. It mentions that there are other Penicitrinones, but we don't have articles about those. I don't even see any information available about the class of chemicals (Penicitrinones). So I agree with deletion of all related articles. Angryapathy (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It at least needs to receive detailed coverage in the secondary literature before it qualifies. Going more broadly, the term penicitrinone only returns 4 PubMed hits - that is obscurity, not notability. Agricolae (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Ajpolino (talk) 22:09, 15 February 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.