Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cocamide TEA

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 --JForget 23:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cocamide TEA

Cocamide TEA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Triethanolamides such as a "cocamido triethanolamide" do not exist (at least not as stable compounds). A Beilstein database search did not give a single hit for any triethanolamide and only 5 suspect hits for trialkylamides in general. The confusion probably stems from listings were "cocamide" and "TEA" (triethanolamine) were listed subsequently as different chemicals. Cacycle (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Chem is incorrect, probably a mistaken spin-off of a jargon-rich area.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strange, is this a case of a "chemical urban legend"? There are 651 google hits for "cocamide TEA", and it's even mentioned in one book. But neither the web pages nor the book seem really authoritative. And a few hundred hits is nothing compared with the ~100,000 google hits and about 100 book hits for its relatives cocamide DEA and cocamide MEA. It's also revealing that cocamide DEA even has a CAS registry number (68603-42-9), and cocamide MEA too (68140-00-1). But there is no CAS number for cocamide TEA. All in all, I'm leaning towards Delete. --Itub (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I get 124 unique hits, but a very high proportion of them are Wikipedia mirrors. Also, the book gives an incorrect (and impossible) structure for cocamide DEA, so it obviously has at least some errors in this area. It's listed as having been published in 2007, so it's possible that the (brief) reference to cocamide TEA is derived from Wikipedia. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The compound does not appear in Chemical Abstracts indicating that there has been no mention of this compound in the chemical literature - a near impossibility for something that is claimed to be an ingredient in commercial personal care products. From a chemistry standpoint, this would be unlikely to be a stable compound. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The reaction of triethanolamine with a fatty acid would (maybe) produce a soap, but we seem to have no reliable data on which to base an article. As it stands, the article has no specific references and its only external link—broken, as it turns out—is to the "Environmental Working Group": while I wouldn't want to criticize the site itself, links to this site are a very good pointer to badly written chemicals articles, in my humble experience. Physchim62 (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I had a crude search of the abstract and titles in a patent database and found no hits for "cocamide TEA". For comparison "cocamide MEA" gave 12 hits and "cocamide DEA" gave 15 hits, so maybe this is not the most sensitive search. The only real hit I found on the web was [link] but it doesn't appear to be the most definitive web page I've ever seen. Based on the above comments, delete -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, I did a substructure search with the triethanolamine/fatty acid headgroup in the Sigma-Aldrich website and got no hits. In comparison the same search with the DEA headgroup recovered five compounds containing this structure. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Many chemical substances used in commerce are undefined mixtures, such as this. See the article on Cocamide--this is not a single compound, but a ,ixture of chemical species with variable lengths of the carbon chain. there are many analogs among substances used as fats or their derivatives. The article needs some editing to clarify this. DGG (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• No one is denying the existence of notable mixtures. In fact, cocamide DEA and cocamide MEA (which are not nominated for deletion) are mixtures. But unlike "cocamide TEA": 1) they have CAS numbers; 2) they are found in multiple reliable chemical databases and catalogs; 3) they produce 100-1000 times more google and google books hits; 4) they are chemically plausible. The relatively few google hits for "cocamide TEA" are likely either typos or misconceptions. --Itub (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• We have reliable information for cocamide: we have not been able to find any reliable sources for this article. That in itself is a good enough reason for deletion in my book. Physchim62 (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• I have to ask, what level of proof are we assessing this on? "Beyond reasonable double" or on the "balance of probability". If it is on "BOP" then this article should be deleted. If it is "BRD" then DGG has a point and I think there is some doubt as to whether this is a "real" compound or not, perhaps only being transient in nature. However that said, I think I would still say that it is "BRD" that this compound is not real and should be deleted. -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unlike Cocamide MEA and Cocamide DEA, it's an implausible structure, at least as a stable compound in an aqueous environment (as it would have to be in a shampoo). This is equally true whether it's a single chain length or a mixture of chain lengths - you can't put three alkyl groups on the nitrogen of an amide and get a stable compound. I was surprised to see the name mentioned briefly in a couple of patents (eg [1]), but there's no way of telling whether this refers to a different structure to the one shown, or is the result of a simple error in writing the patent. It may be the article was the result of a misconception or misunderstanding; I've asked the creator to comment, but he doesn't seem very active these days. Delete as implausible and unverifiable. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 11:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note a further sign that the creator was confused about this compound; it was added to the Surfactant article as a non-ionic surfactant, yet the structure drawn is that of an ionic compound. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 13:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• And I'm no longer confused by the patent; a close reading shows that the list of surfactants in claim 8 is identical to the list in Surfactant - it was probably copied from Wikipedia. Sloppy. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:09, 22 May 2008 (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.