Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1-Methylindole

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 keep all three. Daniel.Bryant 02:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1-Methylindole, 2-Bromo-1-chloropropane and 5-Methylindole

Disputed prod. These appear to be just arbitrary chemical compounds with no particular significance to them. Using standard chemical notation it is quite possible to create hundreds of thousands of arbitrary compounds (e.g. 2,3-dichloro-cis-butenol and so forth). Wikipedia is not infinite. Note that I would have no objection to merging these some place sensible. >Radiant< 16:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

oppose That there is an importance tag in the article does not mean that it is not important. Please leave them as a stub (indoles are important building blocks for organic synthesis and even have been tested as anti cancer drugs themselves, and 2-bromo-1-chloropropane is a simple chiral organohalides, chirality of these compounds is of interest to pollution). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could update the articles to say so? Thanks! >Radiant< 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I could, but I don't have any references at hand, and well, there are many pages needed updating (certainly not only these), and my wikipedia-time is at the moment consumed by adding new functionalities to Wikipedia, preparing scripts for that change, fighting spam/vandalism and, sorry to say so, answering to people who want to delete pages because the Wikipedia database is about to overrun. Sorry, but I am sure there are people in Wikipedia that are willing to help to add data to pages having an {{importance}} tag (sorry for the cynical tone, but I think 'random' page-deleting also consumes time that could have been used more effectively). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — I admit I have a difficult time assessing the notability of these compounds, but they do generate a solid number of ghits and they appear to be discussed in several scientific papers. However I could be easily swayed from this opinion by somebody more knowledgeable about chemistry. :-) — RJH (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The methylindoles are, as noted by Dirk Beetstra antioxidant compounds of medical interest (PMID 15281219, for example). All three of these entries need additional work, but they shouldn't be deleted.... -- MarcoTolo 00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This argument seems more like why WP should have a page covering the topic of methylindoles rather than why each individual one should stay... GassyGuy 15:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I can agree to that, but this is a {{afd}}, not a {{merge}} request. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I put a note on WikiProject Chemistry and WikiProject Chemicals , a member of which probably wrote the stub, and will likely be able to justify or not these stubs existence. Olin 15:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - 5-Methylindole is notable as an interesting system under UV photoexcitation experiments. See [1] for a little summary. The same thing with 2-Bromo-1-chloropropane and 1-Methylindole. These compounds have novel sorts of conical intersections and nonlinearities from an experimental and theoretical perspective. I won't go into the technicalities here, since it's just an AfD. There is nothing to worry about a host of compounds being added to Wikipedia under this blanket definition of "interesting" - there is only a limited class of compounds under consideration at the moment. One would not include something like "2,3-dichloro-cis-butenol" - ab initio methods for calculating the UV spectra for that system would simply be intractable in the current state of affairs. --HappyCamper 15:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Although I am unfamiliar with these particular compounds they do not seem arbitrary. It seems that a couple people here have references to be added to teh article. Remember AfD is a time to improve the article if possible and if you bother to research it add what you know and the reference. I think that any arbitrary adding of compounds such that it would overwhelm would have to be systematic and would appear as a series of analogs.--Nick Y. 16:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it is amazing to see how the apparently similar methylindoles have very different properties, see also 3-methylindole , indole and 7-methylindole V8rik 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I agree with Radiant that WP is not infinite, these are simple enough compounds to deserve their own articles. Physchim62 (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, notable enough to the scientific community. RFerreira 23:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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.