Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dioxandrolon

: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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

=[[Dioxandrolon]]=

:{{la|Dioxandrolon}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dioxandrolon Stats])

:({{Find sources|Dioxandrolon}})

The majority of the content of this article is dubious and/or unverifiable. There are no references to a chemical compound with this name in any chemical database that I have checked (PubChem, Chemical Abstracts, Reaxys, ChemSpider, etc. using the search terms dioxandrolon, "Danavar ", or the possible misspelling "dioxandrolone"). Web searches only turn up references to it being some kind of black market steroid in bodybuilding forums related to steroid use - nothing that would be remotely considered a reliable source. The entire content of the article is unreferenced, contains dubious or exaggerated claims, and has unencyclopedic content/tone. The subject of the article therefore fails WP:N (which applies to chemical compounds) and also WP:V and consequently should be deleted. ChemNerd (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

::*{{Awaiting}} admin closure, but as an editor with experience creating Pharmacology articles with Links to PubChem, PubMed, ChemSpider and the like, there is simply no way that anything notable in the world of chemistry does not have an entry on one of these premier information sources. I {{agree}} with User:ChemNerd entirely. The Illusive Man^(Contact) 19:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete Nothing in the article is verified; it all appears to be WP:Original research. Aside from ChemNerd's searching of the chemical literature, which is persuasive, I checked Google News for possibly popular notability, but found absolutely nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing on non-Google search engines as well, nor on PubMed, nor on clinicaltrials.gov. I agree that this is a black market steroid with neither chemical structure nor anything else reliable on the web. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete, delete, delete! Bondegezou (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

: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.