Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furanolactone

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furanolactone[edit]

What does the article mean when it states "Furanolactone is a lactone that uses the furan ring structure." Since once the two-position has the double bond to the carbon atom and the single bond to oxygen atom, you can only make a single bond, and not a double bond, as the statement implies (a lactone would need the C=O double bond, whcich would be impossible as specified before). Other arangements may be possible (with only one double bond, etc.), but this article gives a misleading discription (I originally wanted to add a chem structure, but then ran into this problem). Very little context, room for expansion. Only google hits I found where mirrors and refrences to a "diterpenoid furanolactone columbin" which appears to be unrelated. Due to this, delete or rewrite. Polonium 22:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent confusion, this is not Gamma-butyrolactone. It has the structure

. It is a different compound, because furanolactone is not listed as an other name of the compound. Polonium 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Furanolactone is a real chemical compound, similar to GBL as you note, but with a double bond in the ring. I don't know of any notable uses of furanolactone, either in industry or in research; so unless someone can note some usefullness, there is currently no reason for this article. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Keep per the excellent job rewriting and de-conflating into 2-furanone, furanolactone, and butenolide by Opabinia regalis and Dirk Beetstra. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a real compound, then this article should exist, after a rewrite. After all, Wikipedia is not paper. I can rewrite it, I only need to know the chem structure (where the carbon-carbon double bond is). Polonium 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do find some uses of it in google - in apparent immune boosting (quack?) medicine, as a hullicinigen, what have you. WilyD 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furan-2-one

Comment. OK, this has gotten me curious, so I've done a bit of research. The article says that furanolactone is the same as furan-2-one. Furan-2-one is a real compound with the structure at the right. However, Chemical Abstracts (the authorative chemical database) does not include furanolactone as a synonym for furan-2-one. The term "furanolactone" does turn up in the chemical literature, but only to describe a broad class of natural chemical compounds that contain both a furan ring and a separate lactone ring, which are completely distinct from furan-2-one. This is probably what User:WilyD's Google hits are turning up too. An example is the hallucinogen salvinorin A. So there are two separate things here which the furanolactone article seems to conflate. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another possible isomer. (UTC)

File:3-Furanolactone.PNG

Furan-2-one will probably exist as an interconverting mixture of those two isomers (tautomers, to be specific) and a third, 2-hydroxyfuran. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless expanded, without prejudice to recreation: valid topic. Current sub-stub is unintelligible to the non-specialist and says nothing that a specialist wouldn't already know. Smerdis of Tlön 22:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per Smerdis. Recognized as a valid topic but I think there isn't a single verifiable sentence in that article. hateless 00:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with Opabinia's rewrite. hateless 01:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rewrite seems valid (Though I am struggling with the chemistry). Viridae ^Talk 00:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've rewritten it to refer to the class of compounds with both furan and lactone rings. The original claim was structurally impossible and it's too bad that Wikipedia and its mirrors are top Google hits for the term, given the flawed previous definition. We could probably use an article on 2-furanone as well. Opabinia regalis 00:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed needs (well, needed) a rewrite, but a delete is not warrented. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found the chemical, added data and text. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But your data refers to 2-furanone and should go on that page, correct? Unless you've found evidence that the name "furanolactone" really is used as a synonym for 2-furanone. Opabinia regalis 15:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me there .. hmm .. is this really the same compound .. I'll have a look around and come back to the subject! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any proof. Found a link to a file with a picture of ascorbic acid, and indeed, there is the 2-furanone-ring again. It may be that these two compounds are the same, though I do not see them anywhere as being synonymous. I reverted my edits on furanolactone, moved the chemical data to 2-furanone, and begin to support a delete (I am generally against deletion, except if the compound really does not exist .. and then wikipedia should maybe inform why the compound is e.g. an urban legend) ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.