Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantamine

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 redirect to amantadine. I note the current debate, but it's really an open-and-shut case. The current article is a poor fork of the same exact compound located at a different article title. There is absolutely no reason to keep to parallel articles. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantamine

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

Delete. Non-notable chemical and it is no more than a technical summary. After tagging it with multiple issues I thought that deletion is in order. Note that it has been CSDed and PRODed (and now AFDed!). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will the nominator take this to DRV when this third attempt to delete the article fails? See WP:IDHT. Warden (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. And what is your reason for keeping the page? I won't grace it with the term "article". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one trying to make a case here and nobody's buying it. You've been told already by two admins that they are not going to delete the article. What's your point? Warden (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to miss the point the the CSD and the PROD were declined on procedural grounds and you don't seem to be aware of the fact the another editor had put it up for CFD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with describing my edits as being disruptive. Why do you think an attempt to remove a poorly written page on a topic that is not really justified can be classed as disruptive? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISRUPTION defines it as "editing that ... disrupts progress towards improving an article". WP:IMPERFECT states clearly our policy that poorly written pages are acceptable. Note that the article is not yet three hours old. Warden (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, as per Wikipedia:AFD#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives, nominators should always search to see if the article can be rewritten and improved including searching for sources. Considering that this article was science-related, there would have certainly been several sources with Google Books or Google Scholar. I have started several successful nominations due to my careful and thorough searching for sources, one of them includes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical Black Press Foundation. Searching for sources will save time for users and the article itself rather than deleting a potentially useful article. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*But WP on the whole can be improved incrementally be deleting the article (IMO). To edit with the big picture in mind is not disruptive. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - First, I should note that the speedy tag was declined because it provided context for viewers. Although the article is not written like a usual Wikipedia page, this is not a case for deleting the page. The article also needs attention from a chemist or chemists, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry may be useful thus I have notified them of this debate. Although I'm very fascinated with science, I am not an expert, unfortunately, but it appears that Google News archives found one result and Google Books found several. Articles for components should always be kept as they have potential. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The identifier number is a tip off. It is highly notable compound, so I replaced this klutzy draft with a redirect to a polished article on Amantadine. Names for chemical compounds are horrendous. Hopefully this change takes care of business, otherwise undo my work with no bad feelings. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussions are normally kept open for seven days and so your action was perhaps too precipitate. I have reverted so that editors may continue to inspect the article in question. Note that multiple sources such as Neurochemistry of aminosugars indicate that Amantadine is the hydrochloride salt of Adamantamine and so they wouldn't be quite the same compound. Warden (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But why keep such a poorly written page in article namespace? It does WP and its readers no favours. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is our explicit policy to work from such poor starts, "For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.". You yourself seem not to have started any articles from scratch and so perhaps have no idea how difficult it is. Please try it yourself before attempting to tear down the work of others. See also WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect in thinking that I have not created any articles. Also, retaining such article as this one (and I am hardly tearing down the work of others since there was no effort made) is simple adding to the backlog that we are not clearing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original author provided much technical content and several sources which seem to be high quality. You, on the other hand, failed to engage in discussion on the article's talk page; failed to consider alternatives to deletion; and only waited four minutes after tagging the article for improvement before nominating it for deletion. You have wasted the time of several editors in the unproductive process of deletion such as this obnoxious discussion. It would have been better if, after tagging the article for improvement, you had moved on to another topic. In due course, one would expect a member of the Chemistry project such as User:Smokefoot to come along and normalise the content in line with other similar topics. See festina lente. Warden (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that your desire to retain this page is completely misguided and is clouding your judgement. Yes, there is content and the sources appear to be of a suitable type but we should not allow such poorly formed articles in article namespace. And once again you have your facts wrong. I did not nominate the article for deletion after four minutes. Another editor pout it up for CSD after an our and I put it up for a PROD after three hours. We are all wasting our time here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When your PROD was removed, you tag bombed the article at 20:47 and then brought it to AFD at 20:51. And, yet again, I must point out that it is clear policy to allow poorly formed articles in article name space. Only 1% of our article are of GA/FA quality. The rest are in varying degrees of construction but that's fine because this is our way of building the encyclopedia. Please see WP:INSPECTOR. Warden (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the essays and the policies that you point to show that WP has a number of flaws that need addressing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flawed articles need to be deleted especially if they are promotional, but Adamantamine is not. As I mentioned, the only issue is that this article needs attention from an expert, simple. SwisterTwister talk 01:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the current number of articles in WP I think we should be taking a harder line on poor quality articles otherwise we will never clear our backlog and never get around to writing the articles that are missing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A verified chemical, per the sources available in this search here (for CAS Registry number 768-94-5, for starters) and per sources provided above by User:SwisterTwister. I've significantly cleaned-up the article's style and layout. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly. All that was needed was a call to WP:Chemistry, who would have have told you that we already have an article on this compound at Amantidine and it should be turned into a redirect. User:Smokefoot was BOLD, and had his actions been allowed to stand then this would all have been over a long time ago and everybody could get on with useful stuff instead of wringing their hands and abusing each other. Please, somebody with some sense close this and turn it into a redirect.Chris (talk) 10:48, 30 September 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.