Deletion of 3,4-Dichlorobicyclo(3.2.1)oct-2-ene

Comment: per Rifleman 82. Agree with you. Maybe we could discuss about a better target to keep the information, like an article on the bicyclooctatrienes, but there is plenty of  covering the subject somehow, so no reason not to have it for now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: One more hypothetical question ... Chemical Abstracts lists over 100 million chemical compounds, all of which come from the chemical literature, i.e. , reliable sources.  Would it be acceptable for any (''or all'') of those chemical compounds to have Wikipedia articles?  I just want to get a handle on how Wikipedia's guidelines/policies should be applied here.  From the replies above, it seems the answer is "yes
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: To the best of my knowledge  was created to keep a check on vanity articles of persons, organization, products etc.  A chemical compound, structural formula, visualization, various phys-chem properties - presuming straight pass for   - perfectly qualifies as relevant info.  Whether it warrants its own article, or if the info should be merged somewhere else with a redirect, is really not something we should waste our time on at AfD.  And with Google, either outcome has ultra-marginal impact on the usefulness of the encyclopedia.  Straight out deletion of the info would be detrimental, but that is not really what is being discussed here, is it?  (btw, I'm impressed with Nerdseeksblonde's research work
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: per #Directory and per statements of the article creator themselves above.  There is not any substantial coverage of this substance in any reliable sources beyond one minor mention in a total synthesis article and a few entries in exhaustive chemical databases.  This does not amount to much more than a name which appears in a phone book paired with a marriage anouncement in a newspaper.  There is nothing here to hang an article on
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: when I created the article (quite a while ago) I was under the - incorrect - impression that all chemical compounds were considered inherently |notable. I have tried to look for additional sources since then and haven't been able to find any, the source that is given is somewhat questionable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN)