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 Userfied. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twibanire Esterification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

lack of notability The article appears to be initiated by a researcher seeking attention for a recent paper in a specialized journal. The paper that is the basis of this article is rather specialized and has not received much attention (as is normal for most technical publications). The term "Twibanire Esterification" is not widely used term, but is probably an effort to promote the achievements of the researcher(s). There is nothing evil going on here, just someone or some group trying to use Wikipedia to get some press. They are excited about their results but lack perspective about notability.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - When I posted this article, I never expected this reaction. I am surprised about this type of criticism. I will be surprised if a scientist looks to seek attention via wikipedia because that often never happens. mgyannick has no conflict of interest here. This article was created mostly due to the novelty of the work. People who are familiar with protecting group chemistry understand the importance of this kind of esterification. It has never happened before that you can take a diol of polyol like galactose or trehalose and carry out high yielding esterification on the primary hydroxyl group only without having to protect secondary ones. usually protecting/ deprotecting strategies are used and this leads to many steps with more chamical wastes produced for each added step. As the world switches to greener methods, protecting group-free methods are of great interest. A classical example is the preparation of maradolipids,recently identified as components of the outer membrane of dauer (enduring) larva of the well-known nematode caenorhabditis elegans. This preparation required a minimum of 5 steps to acconplish.^[1] Using this regioselective esterification however, maradolipids would require only two steps for its synthesis. I must point out that 3 nobel prizes (in 2002, 2006, and in 2008) have been awarded towards c. elegans related research. In my opinion, this article should atleast be reclassified under other topics like esterification. Any suggestion of how to improve this is welcome Mgyannick (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If it helps, esterification already exists but it redirects to Ester. You could raise the idea of creating a separate "process" article at Articles for Creation. Most editors will assume good faith and accept your explanation for why you created the article, especially given your subsequent (very technical) explanation / rationale for doing so. That said, it can be hard to differentiate between an expert editor covering someone else's work and the expert who created the work. A solid understanding by one can be misinterpreted as the voice of the other (if that makes sense). The nomination here by Smokefoot is just part of the routine process we have here at Wikipedia for articles that don't seem to conform with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You shouldn't consider it an attack on your work and as you read various policy documents you'll see what I mean. You might like to have a read of WP:EX as a starting point - you're not the first editor in your situation. I'll post some more on your talk page. As for this particular article, perhaps userfication is in order until the article is ready for the main article space. Stalwart111 02:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy - until the article is ready for main space publication. Stalwart111 02:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! what you said completely makes sense. I guess I owe Smokefoot an apology even though I still think he/ she went a little bit too far. This is quite a welcome to wikipedia! Mgyannick (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries! I have now userfied the article. It is available for you to edit at User:Mgyannick/Twibanire Esterification. Once you think it is ready, you can submit it for inclusion or leave a note at my talk page and I can give you a hand. If you're happy with that solution then the original article should probably be deleted and this will allow you to continue to work on your draft in peace. You might like to have a read of WP:MOS before you get stuck in again. Stalwart111 03:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is the term "Twibanire Esterification" notable? Give me sources, preferrably WP:SECONDARY that support this assertion. Stalwart111, respectfully, on what basis do you accept the statement from Mgyannick? --Smokefoot (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stalwart111. I am happy with that solution and I will work on the article. Mgyannick (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefoot, Hmmm what can I say to you at this point?? You know all Mgyannick (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it may well not be notable. If it is not then Mgyannick will likely have trouble convincing those at WP:AFC that it should be included. It is his responsibility to ensure material is verified before it is added. This will be all the more the case when concluded this way because it would need to be substantially better to get past G4. But all of that is probably inconsequential now; the main-space article will likely be deleted as a result of this AFD and Mgyannick seems to have accepted why that is so. But Mgyannick is also a new user and should be given the option of working on the article in his own space/time if he thinks it can be brought up to scratch. As for accepting statements from other editors - I've seen nothing definitive to prove otherwise so I will continue to assume good faith. If it turns out that assumption is unfounded and Mgyannick does have a conflict of interest then, again, he'll struggle at WP:AFC. If nothing else, everyone is entitled to WP:ROPE (conceptually) and lying now (if that is the case) will only compound the pain later. But that is for everyone to work out in their own time. Stalwart111 04:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no malicious activity going on here. I am just new here. All the rules will be followed for all future editing/ contributions. Mgyannick (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacation^nine 03:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Move to close - given the original author now has this in his userspace so that it can be prepared for a move into the mainspace, the current mainspace article should probably go. Stalwart111 03:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy as above, agreement seems to have been reached. The article is probably too technical for most readers, so I'd suggest a slightly easier article on Esterification (instead of the current redirect) could be a suitable route, with basic descriptions of different esterification pathways, suitably referenced, of which this could be (a complex) one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• REQUEST TO CLOSE This appears to have been handled. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:58, 27 November 2012 (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.