Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hippuristanol

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 03:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hippuristanol and Jerry Pelletier

Delete. Crystal ball. When this thing beats cancer, we'll repost it. The discoverer will be notable then as well. -the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 07:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• This discovery has been reported extensively in the scientific literature and so I think it's notable even if it doesn't cure cancer yet. I added the article because I saw the news reports and wanted to know more, but discovered there was no coverage in wikipedia. I've sent emails to experts in these fields inviting them to expand wikipedia articles in their areas of expertise. I think it's not very nice to delete authoritative articles that people are interested in and it might discourage participation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjhalasz (talk • contribs) 07:44, 20 March 2006.
  • Discovery may have been reported as a chemical with potential, but that does not constitute notability now. WP:CHILL the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 07:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• I've added a reference to Scientific American and preemptively redirected Jerry to the compound. Has non-trivial coverage in several major media. Re CHILL - No hurry to delete, either. - brenneman^{T}{L} 09:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Not explicitly saying "keep" because it's not a vote, it's a discussion.
• Keep. Meets current notability standards, reported in press/professional journals. This really ought to be a speedy keep, since the crystal ball test doesn't apply. Andrea Yates hasn't been validly yet; do we delete her, too? Monicasdude 13:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The stuff exists, and something can be said about it. - Andre Engels 15:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notability evidenced by Scientific American writeup. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Like the Crazy Russian says; no place for a crystal ball. When this stuff is actually out there and doing something then it could be worth an article. In the meantime... Marcus22 20:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In my opinion it is doing something, namely being researched. - Andre Engels 08:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable molecule. Covered in media, holds promise for human use, and notable regardless since it occurs naturally. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above supportive statements. —GrantNeufeld 05:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for above reasons. --Rob 22:59, 24 March 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.