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.
Delete. Page is subordinate to Caffeine. Containted a fullblown infobox ((Chembox)) only, which I recently merged into the parent article (nonredundant data only): [1]here. After this, removed superfluous data from this article (=all data) and tagged WP:A3/empty. The speedy was contested by [wrong username]Boghog for reasons not fully clear or convincing to me. I claim that this data page article had no reason to exist because all data can gently be included in the parent article, obviously, and there is nor was a reason to apply WP:SPLIT (in other words: this is a reversed split operation). DePiep (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The parent article already has a large ((drugbox)) and adding a second large ((chembox)) starts to overwhelm the article. The single ((chembox)) in this data page is cleaner and less cluttered than the four infoboxes that currently exist in Caffeine#Chemical_data section. In addition, there is a convenient and logical link from the bottom of ((drugbox)) to this data page. The criteria for WP:WHENSPLIT are (1) specific material within one section becomes too large or (2) the material is out of scope. Both apply to Caffeine#Chemical_data (the material is both too verbose and detailed for a general article about caffeine). Hence the split that was made in 2011 should be maintained. We need a better long term solution, probably involving Wikidata, but until such a solution is in place, it is better to leave in place the split that was done back in 2011. Boghog (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I directly refer to the link in my keep arguments above. Please keep this link in place until the AFD discussion has reached a consensus. Boghog (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Boghog: re "starts to overwhelm": well, this data is 4kB of the 183kB (2%) [2]. Moving data to the datapage would still leave a huge article. So instead, we could note that all the chemical information is giving good reason for a (content) split, as has been noted here, by creating Caffeine (chemical). (possible outcome of this AfD).
re "cluttered ... in Caffeine#Chemical_data section": I see a nice table gallery with four topical tables. Floating gently in mobile view even, aka responsiveness. A convenient gallery or overview is what I expect for a data sheet. Maybe we could consider things like: add topics/tableheaders to the TOC; but only as an improvement not a prerequisite.
re "four infoboxes": Yes these four data tables are (stripped down) infoboxes. Not ideal, but coming from formal WP:infobox (IB), ((Chembox)) and ((Drugbox)) have scope creep in many ways: having data not present in article body, prominent external link list, multiple IBs in one article, non-IB usage: all accepted AFAIK because it improves the article in favor of wikilawyering into emptyness. Sure this can be improved—as a redesign of the IB, not by an incidental removal of an IB.
re "the single infobox in this data page ..": The bulky list is not an improvement compared to the four dedicated, well-titled tables in Caffeine. On top of this: just a standalone infobox as an article? Inacceptable, especially when knowing that there is an alternative.
In general: from this, I do not get which data sheet presentation you Boghog would prefer or find acceptable. Or, more to the point, which data presentation issues are deleting-cause for you? -DePiep (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or re-arrange to have a separate Caffeine (chemical) article (where Caffeine remains as the more bio-chem focus) if there is lots of non-biochem chem to say. A multicolumn/fragmented infobox at Caffeine#Chemical data is non-standard compared to other chemical infoboxes, jarring/difficult for reader to find this info especially buried at the end of the article. Boghog is certainly welcome to contest a reverse-split and it's standard (as well as polite) that one doesn't hide or delete content subject to afd while the afd is running. And doing this merge (into a separate section of the main article) without prior current discussion is against consensus of previous discussions cited by Boghog. DMacks (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non-biochemical topics (demonstrating there really is potential for non-biochem expansion...no time to write content into the main article right now):
... but what I do not understand: how or why would such a gracious content split from article Caffeine need a Caffeine (data page) article to exist at any moment (before/during/after split operation)? That split is from parent article, all data page info is redundant: data page deletion does not hinder content split. The essence of WP:SPLIT-revert is also: when a data page is merited as a fullblown standalone article, it can always be (re)created. (WP:SPLIT makes clear that when size of data is capsizing the article, split out data is to be considered— see for example Properties of water <-> Water (data page)). For Caffeine data this is not the case. -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My question was, DMacks, how keeping/having this data page relates to your idea to create "Caffeine (chemical)". Even a move does not seem helpful for this; and, of course, such a future move would cause the same issue again (keep-to-move-later IMO not a good workable AfD outcome). But alas. -DePiep (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. To clarify in technical terms, I'd move (data page) to (chemical), with no redirect, and move some chemical content from the current article to the (chemical) article. DMacks (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or better, revert to earlier situation. Keep these datapages when there is sufficient data available (which, for Caffeine and many others, is easily met). We created these datapages because of the datacreep in articles, and now we revert it for no reason. Most of the data that is there is (generally) easily sourced, and where the articles are stubby in nature mark them as such so they can be expanded. Only delete if there is no significant expansion possible, and only delete data if it cannot be sourced. --Dirk BeetstraTC18:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of physical chemistry data involved with making caffeine-containing beverages. A lot of that is depending on solubility data in e.g. water at a range of temperatures. Having a graph of solubility IN the main article is however total overkill, but a table and graph of the data in a datapage is certainly warranted. A sentence in the main page that states that you make tea at 95degC (or whatever temperature) then can refer to that table/graph. Same for coffee. Similar goes for spectroscopic data, steam extraction data, solubilities in ethanol/water mixtures, scCO2 (decaf), ethyl acetate (also decaf). Such raw data is not suitable for the article (bloating), but can help to explain or support. Dirk BeetstraTC20:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About discussion flow. Here Beetstra WP:refunds page Butadiene (data page) into mainspace. For this Beetstra had to use their admin rights (instead of asking for a WP:REFUND i.e. have another editor checking), manually (intentionally) removing the relevant tag, and while explicity acknowledging relevance for this AfD, leaving it to other(s) to list it here (see es). This is making a WP:POINT in mainspace (is why I write more extensive here). More obvious solution is: if that redundant page should be visible for XfD, it be in Draft space. -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I especially like DMacks' idea of having two caffeine articles, one for the drug aspects and the other for the strictly chemical aspects, with this data in the latter. I feel like there is no perfect solution here, and I can appreciate how having a data page consisting mainly of an infobox is a little odd, but I do not believe that deletion is the solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: thanks for this contribution. Allow me to note: "keep or merge" is what this afd is about ;-). Personally I can support the chemical-split too; also I'd like to read why you think deletion of that "odd" article is not needed. -DePiep (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that there is no good reason to remove the information from our content, and the effect of merging/rearranging the data page content into a "chemical" page would naturally make the "data" page no longer needed; I suppose that would amount to an included deletion, but by convention, we regard a merging process as distinct from deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transient inclusion of butadiene data-page, no discussion of its merits
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose butadiene as out-of-process. It was inserted into this AFD a day later, after substantial discussion that was only with caffeine in the nom, and discussion that has substantial focus on aspects that are specific to caffeine and/or different from butadiene. DePiep, this is the second time and way you are acting in ways that are potentially disruptive. Please stop. DMacks (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because you, the nominator, have withdrawn it, and nobody commented in favor of deletion, it is not necessary for an admin to act on it, so I removed the afd tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose butadiene per DMacks. I have boldly struck the out-of-process addition, and I repeat the caution against continuation of the disruptive conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is an article. As such, irrespective of its perceived history, motivation, intention (i.e., backgrounds invisible to the Reader of the encyclopedia), it must stand as an articleby itself full stop. The introductionary WP:What is an article? mentions: notable, summarizes comprehensively, encyclopedic style of language, well copyedited, references to RS, has wikilinks in/out (all 6 bullets, my cutout). Understandably a data page does not have the usual longer verbose, but that is not essential (ie, no elaborate body texts is not an issue). However. The article is an infoboxonly, plainly duplicates information already present elsewhere, does not reach the WP:stub bar from below. The article does not present itself as urgently needed in the encylopedia. It lacks substance. Being an AfD, this approach should be considered too. -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before those criteria, there is 'A Wikipedia article or entry is a page on this site that has encyclopedic information on it. A well-written encyclopedia article:'. This is a page with encyclopedic information on it. I can agree that it is not very well written (I would even say badly written), but that does not mean that it does not have merit. Many stub articles contain encyclopedic information, but lack on all of those points you mention. We do not delete them all, we try to improve them. Note: that the article now plainly duplicates information already present[ed] elsewhere is because you went against the earlier consensus of splitting out the information and have merged it back into the main article. Dirk BeetstraTC11:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the article has encyclopedic information. But that is not enough. The criteria mentioned are an and-list: an article must have some qualities in those too. Anyway, if you think this data page can be improved into a viable article, there is the royal route: start from data as in parent article, and apply WP:SPLIT if and when when actual data quantity merits a separation. Before this, development can take place in Draft:Caffeine (data page) (possible outcome of this AfD). OTOH, creating a separate article (data page or anything else) is not an free option ("we've chosen it so the article is OK"), it must be based on guidelines and article-worthyness. For "future worthyness" of an article: then (re)create that article if and when that happens: in that future. (For our information: candidate data in Caffeine page is only 4kB of the 183kB [3]). Today, it is not an article. -DePiep (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I think above this royal route is rather discouraged as it would go against the consensus (which you have not shown that it has changed). We do not place all our stubs in draft, we happily accomodate them in mainspace. Dirk BeetstraTC14:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, AfD exists to establish (new) consensus. "Some editors like it this way" is not a sound article motivation. Anyway, I am explicitly invoking guidelines and policies like WP:Article size, WP:SPINOUT, WP:MERGE, WP:NOTABLE, WP:SPLIT, WP:NOTABLE, not personal preference (that is: I do believe and support that these guidelines & approaches improve the encyclopedia in this topic). I have not read anywhere these WP:guidelines, policies & thoughts something that urges or even only invites us to (a) keep an immature substandard article, nor (b) split 2% of info out of an article into an incomplete article. -DePiep (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please discuss the proposal of moving chemical information into this page and retitling it Caffeine (chemical). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I discussed above: "There is a lot of physical chemistry data involved with making caffeine-containing beverages. A lot of that is depending on solubility data in e.g. water at a range of temperatures. Having a graph of solubility IN the main article is however total overkill , but a table and graph of the data in a datapage is certainly warranted. A sentence in the main page that states that you make tea at 95degC (or whatever temperature) then can refer to that table/graph. Same for coffee. Similar goes for spectroscopic data, steam extraction data, solubilities in ethanol/water mixtures, scCO2 (decaf), ethyl acetate (also decaf). Such raw data is not suitable for the article (bloating), but can help to explain or support." The idea of making a Caffeine (chemical) is of interest and may stand a chance (per DMacks), but also that article should not become a dumping ground for good, verifiable, encyclopedic but tangential/supporting information, and I think it is a separate discussion.
I still believe that many of these datapages (intentional plural, we have many of them, we should be discussing them as a group what we want with them), including Caffeine (data page), could be transformed into a reasonable 'article', and that the information is of interest to multiple articles (Caffeine as its current description of the drug, Caffeine (chemical), Coffee, Decaffeination, Decaffeinated coffee, Tea, etc. can all point here for more extensive data). That is similar to Water (data page) where multiple articles (water, Properties of water, Ice, Heavy water, Outline of water, etc) are pointing to the datapage, and somewhat akin to what scientific publishing does with supplementary data pages. For that reason, doing a merge and then split again (which may end up in the current status quo since we did not discuss first what we want with datapages in the first place), moving it elsewhere and then wait for creation of another page where some of the data may fit, or whatever is in my opinion 'too soon' and I will reiterate my opinion to keep and develop this, and suggest to have a broad discussion on what we want to do with datapages in the first place. --Dirk BeetstraTC05:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT, and specifically WP:NOTDATABASE. I'm sorry to be the turd in the punchbowl here, and I respect the fact that the other editors commenting above are longstanding contributors who have built immense chemistry/biochemistry content. But I oppose having articles like Caffeine (data page) on philosophical grounds. This is an encyclopedia. Data that doesn't fit into the flow of an encyclopedia article on a topic -- even useful data, even interesting data, even data that some people might like to have handy for reference -- shouldn't be hosted here. Many other websites collect useful chemical data; but that's not our thing. If the "Chemistry of caffeine" is a notable topic (and I'm somewhat confident it is!) then anyone is welcome to write an encyclopedia article on that topic, including whatever data and figures are relevant to that article. But absent that article, this is just using Wikipedia to host a database entry for caffeine, when other websites already do this, and are better suited to do so. Ajpolino (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose to me that's roughly equivalent to having the data tables hidden away at a separate title (as they are now). I'm sure we can agree that not all information on a topic belongs in that topic's Wikipedia article (e.g. we don't describe each of Harry Styles' tattoos at Harry Styles (though take a look; sources exist)). We make editorial judgements all the time to determine what information belongs in an article, and what does not. Perhaps on some items reasonable people will disagree. To me, the Gmelin reference number, dipole moment, hell even the boiling point just aren't germane to caffeine. Maybe if someone wrote up a whole article that was truly an encyclopedia article on Caffeine chemistry, those things would have a clear place. But here it seems like we just shoehorned some arbitrary data tables into the article because we couldn't bear to remove facts from a page. Ajpolino (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajpolino: yes, but there is more. Solubility data of caffeine is of interest to many other articles (decaf coffee, the process of decaffeination, making coffee, caffeine uptake). The Gmelin reference is more specific to Caffeine chemistry (as are the boiling and melting points). But there is data that belongs here, there is data that belongs there, and there is data that belongs here, there (and there and there). (and I could also envisage a 'list of Harry Styles' tattoos' - maybe not that different from 'list of physical properties of Caffeine'). Dirk BeetstraTC12:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think List of physical properties of caffeine would be the most appropriate place for something like this. WP:LISTN gives fairly broad latitude for what constitutes acceptable topics for standalone lists, and it seems to me there's at least a decent argument to be made that this could qualify. But even then, what would be the point of us having List of physical properties of each conceivable chemical pages? Wouldn't we just be mirroring what PubChem and other chemistry databases do? Ajpolino (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, because ideally it would put the different types of physical data into sections and give context. Note that list of physical properties may become a misnomer if we also include e.g. chemical properties, and that I would find it bureaucratic if an article that does not have the word list in it could not be treated like one (meh: ‘<chemical> (data list)’?). You're also right that we should have limits, not every chemical needs this. I think that this is something that needs a broader discussion regarding how to proceed. Dirk BeetstraTC01:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Last relist, need to get more views on whether a move is appropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This came up a couple of weeks ago with the data-page of another common chemical. At the time, I suggested delete for that chemical properties "page" as I felt the whole concept was silly; the basic data should be in the main article, and we're not a chemical database. But I was told that separate data-pages is how the chemistry community has chosen to do it. I still think it's daft, but if it's consensus, so be it. Does anyone know where the consensus was reached? If we don't like these data-pages, it would be most helpful to get the consensus changed rather than fight a patchy action at AfD. Elemimele (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: Ido not disagree per se, but the datapage is ‘supplemental’ to a lot of caffeine related subjects, coffee, decaffeination, tea, caffeine (drug), caffeine (chemical) all (can) benefit from it, and in each of the articles it is rather bloating (see what happens here: Caffeine#Chemical_data). I guess your last comment aligns with an early suggestion of me: do an RfC to see what we actually want with these datapages. Dirk BeetstraTC05:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra:, yup, that's precisely why I find these data-pages a bit dubious. They often seem to duplicate information that's in the main article. Caffeine is an example, because at the bottom of its normal info-box (top right of the article) there is a teeny-weeny link to the caffeine data-page that we're currently considering deleting, and yet the entire information in the data-page is also in the main article as you linked. Why do both? It'd be good to know in general what people expect to get out of chemical data-pages, and where they want them used. I'd certainly be interested in a RfC. Elemimele (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: No, now you misunderstood. The information I link to from the article into the datapage. Now it was merged back without significant discussion and we landed here. But my point is: whether located in the (better: a) main article as a contextless section, or in a separate datapage, it still violates WP:NOTDATABASE. And that paragraph should be replicated in all pages that talk about caffeine (the problem is more obvious for water (data page) … do we put it in water or ice .. or all). So just outright delete? But much of that data is encyclopedic, there are enough references that show you how solubility of caffeine in scCO2, ethyl acetate and water is important to the many subjects involving caffeine. So then replicate it again? Or make a datapage with more context for the data that is presented so that other pages can ‘use’ it? Dirk BeetstraTC11:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra:, ah, okay, that makes a lot of sense. This goes beyond an AfC thing, but I take it you would then argue that for chemicals of general interest, such as caffeine, we should have a data-page to which multiple articles can refer? Or is there value in a template that would appear visually in the other articles (I would say not, as it would be undue weight in an article on coffee). If the actual data are to be removed into a data-page, then I think it would help if the link in the chemical info-box were a lot more obvious. Is there some way in which a page can function as a stand-alone page when referred to from "coffee" but appear in full in the main article about caffeine, as though it were a template? I don't know what's best...
About WP:NOTDATABASE, the point is that we shouldn't have indiscriminate data without a context. Fortunately the basic chemical data typically displayed in info-boxes have all the titles wiki-linked, so if someone doesn't know what a molar mass is, they'll get a much better context here than any other source of chemical information. I also think that many of our readers, for example 6th form students, will find Wikipedia far more accessible than Chemspider etc., so provided we're not sticking great swathes of obscure data into the data-pages (or articles), it's genuinely useful stuff that should be here. I just want it to be easy to find from the main article; I don't care how that's achieved. Elemimele (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: Yes, that is the point. But even if as a section in an article, or as a separate datapage, all the data should be contextualized. I should not just have a table on a page (or a set of tables in a section), but rather a (very) short lede, then sections with different 'types' of data (e.g. for caffeine a section with solubility data in different solvents) with again a bit of context why these tables are of interest (pointing back to decaf coffee, process of decaffeination, etc.). If there are then sections that are only relevant for one article, they probably should not be in the datapage. And we should probably have this only for chemicals where that condition is met, and only if there is 'sufficient' data beyond what you would need - if it is just one graph/table then it can be stored in one article, but if there is more then datapage. Yes, this discussion is way beyond an AfD, this needs centralized discussion on what we actually want with these datapages. Dirk BeetstraTC12:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Above, you use the argument against the earlier consensus, go against the consensus, was by consensus removed to keep (BTW, I did not find a diff for that consensus; pls someone add). But of course, this AfD is able to overrule that or any consensus. Earlier consensus is not forbidding us to run and conclude an AfD. (Arguments from that consensus-discussion could be reused as valid, of course—both ways). -DePiep (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course an AfD can do that. But this AfD was not set up to override consensus, this AfD was (and you may not have known that, discussions were linked above) initiated after you bluntly undid the consensus, ‘blanked’ the page, first tried to speedy it (hence no discussion to overturn the consensus) and then coming here to delete a page that was empty. But the consensus to split is larger than caffeine, we also have butadiene, water, and some others. This AfD consensus cannot set a new consensus for all the others. That is why I have, since well before this discussion, stated that we first should discuss what we want to do with these datapages, then implement that. Dirk BeetstraTC02:14, 11 February 2022 (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.