Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hongdoushans

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 merge into taxane. There is consensus that the article currently fails WP:GNG and the policies then imply that it can not exist as a standalone article. There is no consensus whether it should be deleted or merged, and as a default info should not disappear, hence it will be merged.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hongdoushans

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

No attempt made to indicate the usefulness or importance of these compounds. This is a general encyclopedia not a chemical formulary. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has a reference from what I think is a peer-reviewed journal. Individual compounds are usually considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. See also these references: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="Hongdoushans" Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or possibly merge with Yunnanxane and Taxusin, which are other diterpines from the same plant. Individual compounds are usually considered notable, as Eastmain says. There is no Wikipedia policy excluding scientific material. -- 202.124.72.14 (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The idea that "individual compounds are usually considered notable" is not true and should not be considered sufficient reason for keeping the article. Chemical compounds need to meet criteria outlined in the general notability guidelines to be included in Wikipedia. Notability requirements for chemical compounds are supported by WikiProject Chemistry and WikiProject Chemicals as stated in chemistry manual of style. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator's rationale "No attempt made to indicate the usefulness or importance of these compounds. This is a general encyclopedia not a chemical formulary" is sound. If there is no scientific literature to support the usefulness or importance of these compounds (a brief, but incomplete, literature search doesn't turn up anything for me), or if the content of this article is not sufficient for a standalone article, I would recommend merging the content into taxane which covers this general class of compounds rather than simply deleting. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: merging into taxane does seem like a good option. Project Osprey (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into taxane, per WP:PRESERVE. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are, by my count, close to 1,000 scholarly articles on taxanes from this specific tree (under the standard name Taxus wallichiana or the nonstandard name Taxus yunnanensis). If that doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, I don't know what does. And if anticancer activity doesn't count as useful then, again, I don't know what does. -- 202.124.73.17 (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many taxanes and many scholarly articles about them, but that's an argument to keep the article taxane, not necessarily the article under discussion here. As for the "anticancer activity", a positive result in a single in vitro assay is a quite common event, and is not evidence of any actual usefulness. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG for these specific chemicals (the topic of the article here, per Edgar181). Even the cited ref describes the EC50 values it reports (the "anti-cancer activity") as ”inactive" for two of the three compounds. DMacks (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we merge with Taxane, we should probably do the same for Taxusin and Yunnanxane. -- 203.171.197.13 (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 20:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to taxane along with the other stub taxane articles. If they amount to something important they can be split out again. Mangoe (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia contains numerous chemical compounds and there seems to be no sensible reason to discriminate against these ones. See WP:NOTPAPER. Warden (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's general notability guidelines are the sensible reason to distinguish between chemical compounds we have articles about those that we don't. WP:NOTPAPER is not a reason to indiscriminately keep an article and it explicitly opposes that approach. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The practical result of the GNG guideline for chemical compounds is that we include those that are discussed in more than one scientific paper, a small minority of the known ones. This is basically rational for the most part, as most of the ones excluded are synthetic products made once as part of a investigation. Natural products may well be considered different, as having some degree of intrinsic importance as components of the non-human world. I might or might not support such a guideline change, but this would need discussion elsewhere . DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per DGG. He states the usual outcomes fairly well. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2013 (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.