Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7-Acetoxymitragynine

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 userfy to User:Trippplethreat/7-Acetoxymitragynine. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7-Acetoxymitragynine

Based entirely on original research, as discussed on the creator's talkpage (see User talk:Trippplethreat). The only reference in the article refers to a different compound, 7-hydroxymitragynine, which already has an article. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreation if the sources for this article get published. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A subject requires multiple published sources, independent of the subject, to establish notability, and to attribute any information. If the only article on this alkaloid is unpublished, then there are no sources. Original research, as the nominator said. Calgary (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, RS. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR and N. Artene50 (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "Nyttend" the publication will happen before 2009--Trippplethreat (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as WP:OR. The creating editor has stated as such on the associated talkpages. He/she is researching this compound and may be published in a peer reviewed journal soon but until that time this article should not be included. It's a good faith article but the editor was not aware of wikipedia policies regarding WP:NOT Nk.sheridan Talk 22:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like a student writing about his project. Hope it works out, but until it is published in a decent journal, has no place here, as is OR and crystall-balling. (Chemicals very rarely work as expected! :-))Yobmod (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chemicals are notable just by existing. However, since information on the chemical is unpublished, there is no RS that it exists, what its properties are, etc. Once this is published, even in thesis form, feel free to recreate. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 7-hydroxymitragynine as this compound is a prodrug for the hydroxy compound, for which there are references available. 7-acetoxymitragynine does exist and is being sold and used as a research chemical, but all the information available about it could be summarised to a single line on the 7-hydroxymitragynine page saying something like "and the O-acetyl derivative has also been reported", ~~and there are no reliable sources for 7-acetoxymitragynine itself~~. Meodipt (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I was wrong, 7-acetoxymitragynine has been documented in a reputable journal, ( J Med Chem 2002;45(9):1949-56. PMID 11960505 ), as compound #11. So there is a reliable source for the compound's existence, and it has been found to be an active mu-opioid agonist. Whether it is really notable enough to warrant its own page is another matter, I vote for redirect and add a line to the 7-hydroxymitragynine page to note the existence of the acetyl ester. Meodipt (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Meodipt. I don't think the compound is notable enough for an own article, but redirects are cheap and some mention of it can be made in the hydroxy- article since it has been mentioned in the literature. --Itub (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. I will be happy to recreate the page when the my research has been published.--Trippplethreat (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal I'd like to close this AFD with a WP:USERFY to Trippplethreat's userspace. When more references turn up, he can move it back to the main space. This prevents a waste of effort, while preserving the community consensus that this article is not ready for prime time. Are there any objections? Tripplethreat: this means that the article (with all the history) will reside on within your "sandbox" - User:Trippplethreat/7-Acetoxymitragynine. You can edit it all you like. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I think I did it correctly, correct me if this was not what you were thinking of. Thanks for the idea.

PS: I am assuming this way the information will still be out to the common googler looking for info on this compound?--Trippplethreat (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Not quite; I've fixed it with a page move now. Google will still catch it, though it might not have the same page rank as an article on the mainspace. Further discussion should go to User talk:Trippplethreat/7-Acetoxymitragynine. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:48, 26 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.