Talk:Olympiadane

Noteworthy?

• I do not think that Olympiadane is noteworthy enough to have its only page. I don't know of anyone besides Stoddart who has published on this molecule. Perhaps it is worthy of note on the catenane page as a rather advanced catenane system. M stone 15:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I see this as a remarkable compound, if only due to its name and structure. However, it is true that not much has been published about it. It could be turned into a small section under catenane, unless someone wants to expand it to include things such as the synthetic route. --Itub 11:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I created the article, because it was on the list of requested chemistry articles. I also think that it is noteworthy, there is no section in the catenane article, where examples of the molecule family are listed. — Tirkfl^talk 13:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that keeping "olympiadane" is problemaic, even if a synthesis is added. Stoddart has introduced several names, such as "olympiadane," when reporting his research. Some of these names have been adopted by other researchers, but many have not. I think that having an article on an individual term that is not widely adopted is promoting Stoddart's research. The catenane article already has a "Families of catenanes" section. I will merge "olympiadane" into the catenane page if there are no objections within the next few days. M stone 13:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The catenane article does not mention any of the existing molecules, it focuses on common features of the family. Although it is a novel chemistry area that is not widely accepted, some key molecules like Olympiadane should be mentioned. Maybe a section called "List of synthesized catenanes" (or whatever) should be merged into the catenane article. — Tirkfl^talk 13:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is page that only describes a single molecule, then what is its significance? It appears that the molecule's only interesting feature is that it was synthesized once. There are no important application of the molecule, such as pharmacutical activity. Millions of molecules have been synthesized, but not all are notable enough to be included as a page in an encyclopedia. M stone 15:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Many molecules have been synthesized just because they had an interesting-looking structure and name, without any applications in mind. And they are notable because of that. Examples include cubane, pagodane, prismane, basketane, catenanes, rotaxanes, möbius aromatic rings, dodecahedrane, tetrahedrane derivatives, helicenes, etc. We have articles on many of them. In some cases, some applications have been found. In others, they are still just academic curiosities, but they can still be included in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not paper! --Itub 15:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, there was an article about it in the New York Times: [1]. --Itub 15:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If the molecule was described in the New York Times then I would agree that it is notable. I will add the reference. M stone 16:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please confirm classification

The WikiProject classification for Olympiadane is Start-class. However, the page has less than 100 words, so it might not meet the grading criteria. If it should be a stub, then please set |class=Stub on this talk page & reinstate the stub tag(s) on the article page.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I've re-classified it as a stub. EdChem (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)