Talk:Methoxypropane
Add topic | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
speedy
[edit]Contest speedy, the subject is notable, it only does not say that, it is already tagged with the {{importance}}, for further discussion, see the notability wikiproject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Dirk, after doing a search on Google, I couldn't find ANY information anywhere of how this chemical is notable. After re-reading the notability guidelines, I still see no reason to keep this article. Aervanath 17:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Might be, I've also had a quick look, I do see it has toxicology data available, and it is an isomer of diethylether. But it is indeed not going to be a hugely important compound. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- So does that mean you'll remove the hang-on tag? Or is the data you found notable enough? Aervanath 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm in doubt. I'd like to hear the reason why this article was created in the first place as well. My survey was quick, I may have missed something, otherwise I tend to removal of the hangon. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Still not utterly impressed .. but / - study on radiation of methoxypropane, creates radicals that rearrange. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- So does that mean you'll remove the hang-on tag? Or is the data you found notable enough? Aervanath 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This compound was once used as an anesthetic. It might be more widely known as methyl propyl ether, or by the trade names Neothyl or Metopryl. I'm going to remove the speedy tag and will write up a suitable article shortly. --Ed (Edgar181) 21:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I got a bit a feeling that that was the case from the toxicology study, something about mice going out in combination with a LD50, but was not sure. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
stub?
[edit]Having been shown to be wrong once before in regards to this article, I'm not going to take any more drastic action on my own, but doesn't this article still qualify as a stub? It still doesn't seem all that informative. Aervanath 09:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I can see it carries the correct stub templates. Hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, you're right, my mistake! --Aervanath 12:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)