Deletion of RU-58841

Comment: meets the general notability guideline, although what can be mentioned in the article partly depends on  as mentioned. The first result in a PubMed search is described as a review, although not specifically about it, and there are others that appear to be similarhttp://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2072875http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1517/13543784.14.2.177 and mentions in a few books. I haven't searched very thoroughly, so it's likely that more can be found
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS)

Comment: A http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=RU+58841&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C22&as_sdtp= Google Scholar search finds at least one paper about this compound that gets 63 citations, so the chemical is of some interest to scientists. We can stay on the good side of  by keeping medical claims out of the article. Even if this compound has no value in medicine it is biologically active and it sticks to androgen receptors. At present we can't even say that it has *applications* in medicine; such applications would require drug approval which has not been given. Note that we already have {{cat|Antiandrogens}}, which has entries for both drugs and non-drugs. It's hard to see an argument for deletion of the non-drugs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS)