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. Secret ^account 05:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14-cinnamyl 3-acetyl oxymorphone

[edit]

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

Contested speedy, the article (in a very technical tone) claims it is a substance structurally related to both oxymorphone and heroin, but even though is is not widely used it is 200 times stronger than morphine. I don't see a reason why this content should have its own article within wikipedia, if there is a parent article it should be incorporated, but notability is the real concern in there. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete According to the Oxymorphone article on opio.wikkii.com, this is a real drug, with the cited reference J Exp Ther. Pharm. (1964) 174–182. I'm unable to verify this reference; it is the only one I found. Unless more reliable sources can be found, this article falls below notability thresholds. As this is a derivative of oxymorphone (there are apparently many such derivatives; drug chemists are endlessly inventive), it would make sense to merge it with the Oxymorphone article. As an aside, smart addicts stay away from such potent derivatives; it's way too easy to overdose. --Mark viking (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to identify any journal "J Exp Ther. Pharm". The closest I can find is J Pharmacol Exp Ther. If that is the intended journal name, then the reference is referring to J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1964 174-80, Pilocarpine Blockade of Spinal Inhibition in Cats. (PMID 14163990) which doesn't seem relevant. I would not trust the info at opio.wikkii.com -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this reference. I agree, just from the title, the article doesn't look relevant. I have changed my recommendation to delete, as there now seem to be no reliable primary sources for verifiability. --Mark viking (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge - as a very basic rule of thumb, if it has a full chemical name, complete with numbers, it's probably not yet notable enough for its own article. It exists, and thus belongs in the Oxymorphone article. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any reliable source that verifies that "it exists"? -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oxymorphone Delete, not sufficiently notable for separate article.--Staberinde (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote per Ed's convincing argument about only source that had been brought up.--Staberinde (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Do not merge content. It is inaccurate and/or unverifiable. I am unable to find this chemical compound in any chemical database searching either by the given chemical name or by chemical structure derived from the name. The content of this unreferenced article is dubious and entirely unverifiable. Merging the content into oxymorphone would be a bad idea unless someone can come up with reliable sources to support it. Other articles started by the same editor as this one have similar problems. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the author of this article is confused with 14-Cinnamoyloxycodeinone? -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable, no merge, no redirect. There is no evidence from reliable sources that this compound has ever even been synthesized. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failed to be verified on reasonable efforts; likely inaccurate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 1 March 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.