Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2-A1MP

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus.  Sandstein  20:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2-A1MP

[edit]
2-A1MP (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)

The contents of this article cannot be verified. There's no CAS number for it, nor any mention of it in the normal scientific literature. Most of the information on its effects appear to have been scrapped from internet message boards, this in no way meets MEDRS. Project Osprey (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdking2015 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC) If you have a look at the "talk" page for the article these issues were already discussed. Also have you looked at many of the other currently existing emerging drug articles? Many have far less reference backing their content but still remain.[reply]

Regarding CAS#, this compound appears to be too new to have been given a number, at least according to CAS website, but I do get this number when I search the web: 831232-01-2. This is new info to me also, there was no number anywhere I searched, even as recently as last week. I have not been able to confirm this as being correct info for the record, so I don't think this number should be included as CAS for this specific substance until verified.

I am open to changing the name, the current main article name is 2-a1mp (there is some confusion about the I or 1 thing worldwide it seems) and via the suppliers' listed IUPAC name and molecular models I have been able to link the substance structure with 5-methoxy-methylone which I would consider acceptable as an article name as long as the 2-a1mp reference is there near the top due to it's popularity. The MDMA article isn't called "Molly" etc, but this case is different in that it is being sold by overseas chemical suppliers using 2-a1mp/aimp as the official name.

At what point does information on potential public safety threats become "notable" or up to Wikipedia's "standards"? Surely it can't be that news reports of injury or death from chemical threats are what would make this "notable".. To me any substance that is being consumed by human beings as food/supplements should be deemed "notable" just by that fact alone.. I'm not sure about how exactly to bring something so new up to wiki standards since there really isn't a lot of available information, but I am sure that first-aid response and safety via general education and awareness were the primary motivators for my original submission and will be for any future contributions of mine on the topic of emerging substances of potential abuse, regardless of how Wikipedia policy is interpreted by any given user/admin.

Nerdking2015 (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles on chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This chemical compound clearly does not meet the criteria. It may do so in the future, but it does not now. Currently, there is no mention of this chemical compound anywhere in the scientific literature - nothing in Chemical Abstracts or Reaxys. Due to the rapid cat-and-mouse games between individuals that produce novel recreational drugs and the toxicologists/drug-control agencies that track them, emerging drugs of abuse quickly make it into the scientific literature these days. The fact that this one has not suggests that it is not yet notable. The complete absence of reliable sources in the article (all the current sources refer only to different, related chemical compounds) means there is no verifiable content. Even the CAS#831232-01-2, as noted above, is incorrect; it is not even a valid format. This is indicative of the reliability problems associated with trying to create an article about something for which there are no reliable sources to base content on. Per WP:N and WP:V, this article should be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ed. shoy (reactions) 15:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 15:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Googling the supposed IUPAC name (no listing of it in official sources) does show some sites selling claiming a CAS number of 831232-01-2. I have not been able to verify this in any reliable source. Best to delete for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cayman Chemical Company provides forensic standards of the molecule referred to here as 2-aimp, however they call it (much more sensibly) 5-methoxy-methylone. A included links to their data on the substance. They're pretty established and respected, meaning the substance and the IUPAC do indeed exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdking2015 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First off hello all! This has been open for discussion for a week and now all the naysayers appear? What is this, ebay lol? Seriously though, how does one define "quickly"? as in these chemicals find their way "quickly" into medical papers etc. What is the typical trigger which brings these items into view of the scientific community? As I've said I don't know how to bring said substance up to wikipedia standards, I don't have a lab and even if I did I believe someone else would have to create a paper on their findings or create the article here it can't be the same person. I just feel that anything people will ingest is deserving of being called notable. Nerdking2015 (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one !vote per person please. shoy (reactions) 13:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "I don't know how to bring said substance up to wikipedia standards". As an experienced editor here, I don't know how to either. There simply isn't any available information from reliable sources upon which to write an encyclopedia article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the substance exists and is being consumed presently.. this may be a better topic for some other type publication, what brought me here is the fact that Wikipedia is a first-line resource for lots of people worldwide. I feel that the fact that these chemicals are being ingested makes them of particular notability, and the pace of the chemistry game is much too fast for emerging molecules to meet the notability standards, during the time it takes for research etc to be done, there will almost inevitably be some injury or worse to some percentage of users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdking2015 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your aim, I think you'd be better off at Erowid. shoy (reactions) 21:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps.. but can anyone explain what features this article has (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%27-Fluoro-%CE%B1-Pyrrolidinooctanophenone) that the 2-a1mp article discussed here lacks? Just curious. Thanks in advance! :-) Nerdking2015 (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-Ethylmethcathinone. One reference? It does have a CAS number I guess that's all that's needed? I'm failing to see consistency here. Nerdking2015 (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. If you feel that they don't meet notability standards, feel free to nominate them for deletion. shoy (reactions) 21:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that had to be done by an admin. At any rate I just wanted to make sure that some thing that I saw with increasing frequency was mentioned here since prior to that it wasn't. I contribute when I can, but life won't allow me the luxury of singling out articles for deletion. My lack of knowledge of the gazillion or so "WP:[stuff]" arguments would make building a case for each difficult. Plus, and I don't know if I mentioned this already or not, but people ingest the stuff. Into their bodies. The very people that are the reason wikipedia exists. That's all. Whatever happens happens :-) Nerdking2015 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The compound referred to as "2-A1MP" is specifically listed as an illegal drug in at least one judisdiction, Hungary. See A Magyarországon megjelent, a Kábítószer és Kábítószer-függőség Európai Megfigyelő Központjának Korai Jelzőrendszerébe (EMCDDA EWS) 2005 óta bejelentett ellenőrzött anyagok büntetőjogi vonatkozású besorolása, on page 9 of the pdf. I know there are hundreds of designer drugs known by now, but nevertheless from a legal perspective it is still a big deal when any compound is specifically banned. Especially in this case, as since Hungary is an EU member it is almost certain that other member states will also ban this compound before long, as they try to keep their legislation harmonised. It is hard to argue that a compound which people can go to prison for, could possibly fail to meet WP:N. This does pose a problem however from a Wikipedia policy perspective, as while the Hungarian ban notice is certainly a WP:RS, it is essentially the only accepted source that this compound exists. Sadly, this situation is not uncommon these days, but I don't think that deleting pages for compounds that are indisputably notable, just because of a lack of sources, is the right approach. Meodipt (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, I'm not sure that it being banned in Hungary is a big deal. Due to the speed with which new compounds are being created governments are now just banning whole lists of chemicals based on their structure, rather than any proven evidence of harm, or even proof that they exist. --Project Osprey (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to find any actively for sale that do not exist. Nerdking2015 (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to Project Osprey, no, you are wrong about this. Certain jurisdictions such as Hungary and Sweden have very efficient processes for adding new psychoactive substances to banned lists as soon as they are identified by government forensic laboratories, but one thing they do not do is ban "prophetic" compounds that have not been encountered yet. Such compounds do indeed get banned sometimes but only under analogue provisions, and you do sometimes see prophetic compounds mentioned in discussion documents about upcoming analogue bans (such as this one from the UK, and this one from Germany), but prophetic compounds rarely if ever get specifically added to banned lists by name. This only happens when compounds have been identified (usually from Police or Customs seizures) and their chemical structure has been definitively established by analytical laboratories, as has happened here. Meodipt (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Just to clarify, this doesn't mean drugs always get banned for good reasons, and there are quite a few compounds banned in some jurisdictions on the basis of their pharmacological properties rather than because they have actually been sold as designer drugs. But these are always known compounds, if 2-A1MP has been listed by name there is no doubt it exists. Meodipt (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although a rename to 5-Methoxymethylone wouldn't hurt. Aethyta (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edits look great imo! Definite improvement. :-) Nerdking2015 (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:28, 20 November 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2-A1MP&oldid=1078075930"