Wikipedia:Notability (chemicals)

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

This essay is about the notability of chemicals. For the Wikiproject on chemicals, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals.

This page in a nutshell:

Any chemical substance which is covered in secondary or tertiary sources is considered to be notable, except for trivial database entries. Notability follows the general guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability and the most recent consensus.
Primary literature (original research) may be cited when secondary literature (review articles) is unavailable, if the chemical is discussed in the introduction of the article, which briefly reviews previous research and can be considered a "mini-review".
For chemical intermediates rarely or never discussed in secondary literature, but frequently appearing in primary sources cited in secondary literature, the experimental sections and supporting information sections of primary literature may also be considered a "mini-review" and cited (since experimental sections are typically derived from previous work).

This guideline is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of chemicals. The purpose of Wikipedia is to document human knowledge.

Basic notability

For a chemical compound to be considered to have received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source, it should be covered in secondary and tertiary sources, including books and review articles. Review articles are typically secondary sources, while books can be either secondary (books written to review a specific area of chemistry) or tertiary (e.g. encyclopedias, class textbooks). Examples of chemistry journals mostly consisting of review articles include Chemical Reviews and Accounts of Chemical Research. An example of a book commonly used as a source for chemical articles is Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Primary sources may be used in some cases presented in the section below.

Primary sources

When possible, secondary literature (review articles) is preferred, but when unavailable, primary literature (original research) in scientific journals may be used as sources, since the introductions of many primary publications contain a "mini-review" discussing prior work in the field. If these introductions discuss the chemical, they may be considered mini-secondary sources. Primary literature is also often the only source available on chemical intermediates (see section Chemical intermediates below).

Databases (PubChem and ChemSpider)

While databases such as PubChem and ChemSpider are technically tertiary sources containing entries for millions of chemical compounds, these entries are considered trivial (and not notable) if no properties are given beyond the bare basics for an entry (name, structure, formula, database numbers, and computed properties). To be notable, the entry should have at least some property given, such as melting/boiling point, solubility, description of uses, etc.

Notability of specific topics

Chemical intermediates

Intermediates in an organic synthesis, which are frequently part of the synthesis of a final product but have scarce applications in themselves, may be present in the experimental sections and supporting information sections of hundreds of primary sources, but are rarely discussed in review articles, in which only applications of the final products are discussed. Since experimental procedures are often derived from previous work, these may also be considered "mini-reviews", though it is preferable to use primary literature that has been cited and discussed in secondary literature.

Hypothetical chemical elements

There is a longstanding debate on the notability of undiscovered chemical elements, i.e. those with an atomic number greater than 118. Currently, such elements are considered notable enough to have their own articles if several reliable sources describe predictions of nontrivial properties or a detailed history of predictions and failed discoveries. Mentions in a table or brief explanations in prose that do not focus on the element are not considered sufficient (per Wikipedia's general notability guideline). An explanation of a single prediction in one source is also not enough for a standalone article; such research is better summarized in a relevant section of an article on a broader topic (such as extended periodic table). Detailed descriptions of a specific element's history, which may include unsuccessful searches if they are specific to one element, are sufficient to establish notability. Predictions on physical, chemical, and nuclear properties are also acceptable if they give in-depth coverage on individual elements. Long articles with lists (tabular or in prose) of predictions, or even short sections on many elements, however, do not automatically render every single one of those elements notable. Likewise, one new publication will likely not lead to a change in notability, unless it is more detailed than all other available sources and/or it leads to further developments or interest among other researchers.

As of February 2019, elements 119–122, 124, and 126 are considered to be notable enough for standalone articles. Disputes on notability have led to repeated recreation and re-redirection of these articles; there is an established consensus against the creation of standalone articles for the other elements that currently are redirects. If new research is published that may establish notability for a specific element, it is advisable to create a draft first and consult editors at the relevant WikiProjects.