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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19-Nordehydroepiandrosterone

[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, the named chemical compound is not mentioned at all in any of the references listed. The entirety of the text of this article, written primarily by one editor, is original research unsupported by the references. It constitutes synthesis which is against policy. A search of the scientific literature turns up only two articles that mention this chemical compound. Neither article supports either the notability of the compound or the veracity of the article's content. (See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#19NorDehydroepiandrosterone for details). In all, except for the data in the infobox, the article fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any WP:RS to establish WP:N. Derild 49 21 ☼ 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that this one's going to be tough, and require research by multiple editors. My contribution to the double-checking, eliminating one: This isn't in FiehnLab's metabolite list as far as I can see. Uncle G (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve referencing. It is discussed on several sites as an anabolic steroid, suggested as a dietary component, and is discussed by the FDA, thus notability is clearly provided. However, maybe it is better to discuss NorDHEAs all together in this article? Nageh (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see what the problem is. It indeed seems not discussed at all in any of the references. The only reliable references to be found are that of the FDA, which does not really add much to this article anyway. It is interesting to see there is a promotional site which, despite different text, cites more or less the same references as this wikipedia article. While it may indeed be in use as an anabolic steroid, without better references I change my vote to 'delete'. Nageh (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Frankly, I am not an expert in the area of this specific compound, but I've done my checks yesterday, when this was posted at WP:CHEM, and could not find (i) evidence for this compound in the cited refs, (ii) evidence for this compound in journal articles (WoS, some chemical locators). I guess the structure formula was drawn mechanically, from the formal name. No matter how good such an article looks, it has to be deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of the article doesn't appear in the citations, and I find exactly one casual mention on searching ("specific abundant metabolites of 19-nor-5-androsten-3,17-dione are 19-nordehydroandrosterone and 19-nordehydroepiandrosterone."[1]). Not enough for WP:N. The bulk of the article is unsourced WP:OR. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2010 (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.