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. Relisting has served its purpose here, as it is now apparent that the article meets our notability requirements. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2-Carbomethoxytropinone

[edit]

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

No references so unverifiable and also can't verify notability Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I failed to find any coverage which would sustain its verifiability, article seems to be major POV and OR. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The GScholar results seem to go some way towards establishing notability, and even literally verify much of the article - in the sense that the article creator seems to have taken phrases from several relevant Google snippets. Unfortunately, I am far from convinced that the article creator had any meaningful idea of what they were writing about. I think there may be a decent article to be written here, but I will certainly concede that this is not remotely it. PWilkinson (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 2-Carbomethoxy-3-tropinone, the more commonly used name from which it is easy to establish notability. I also went ahead and deleted the copy-paste synthesis text, made it into a perfectly acceptable stub, and will probably add 2-3 more lines later.AioftheStorm (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This chemical compound is certainly used as an intermediate in the preparation of notable compounds (cocaine and its analogs in particular) and considering that this compound is commercially available from multiple vendors (suggesting its utility) I suspect notability could be established. At the moment, however, the article content is insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe there is now enough to warrant inclusion of this article. I suspect there has been research from the late 1800s-1930s on the best ways to synthesize 2-CMT, but I haven't looked into it. Either way as the only known precursor to cocaine and the cocaine analogs I feel it meets the WP:GNG.AioftheStorm (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your additions to the article. I think the article content now sufficiently demonstrates that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now a decent stub article with multiple sources showing it meets the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep or rename as suggested by AioftheStorm above. This is clearly a notable compound. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly a notable compound. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fascinating compound with notable uses and notable history. It would be good to know exactly what searches failed to find any coverage which would sustain its verifiability, but the refs are there now so obviously someone found this coverage. Andrewa (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2014 (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.