Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9b-Phosphaphenalene


 * 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. Renames can be actioned elsewhere Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

9b-Phosphaphenalene

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of notability. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG as I couldn't find any sources that indicate notability. -- Imminent 77   (talk)  19:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep On the contrary, I would argue this is an example of an interesting and unusual chemical structure, which is just the kind of thing an encyclopedia should have in it. A chemical compound doesn't have to do anything or be useful for a particular application to be notable, chemists often make compounds because they have unusual structural features. When I made this page I was looking into aromatic ring systems containing unusual heteroatoms, and I thought this was a nice example of an aromatic phosphorus heterocycle that was slightly more complex than plain Phosphole or Phosphorine. Still, I will concede there is not much here, and if the consensus is that the page doesn't have enough notability to stand on its own, it could always be merged to a subsection on the Phosphorine page. Meodipt (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look like Imminent77 looked very hard to find sources, I found two within 5 minutes that relate to phosphaphenalenes, apparently they are useful for optoelectronic applications as the aromatic bonded phosphorus changes how it accepts electrons depending what light shines on it, so you can get temperature-dependent luminescence, electrochroism (changes colour when electricity is applied), etc. Lots of very relevant applications. See for instance, "Hindenberg P, Romero-Nieto C. Phosphaphenalenes: An Evolution of the Phosphorus Heterocycles." Synlett 27.16 (2016): 2293-2300." and "Romero‐Nieto C, et al. Paving the Way to Novel Phosphorus‐Based Architectures: A Noncatalyzed Protocol to Access Six‐Membered Heterocycles." Angewandte Chemie International Edition 54.52 (2015): 15872-15875." Looks like the compounds with the phosphorus at the edge of the ring system are more notable than the ones with the phosphorus at the center of the fused rings as here, so this page should probably be turned into an overview of phosphaphenalenes in general, rather than this compound in particular. However phosphaphenalenes in general are certainly notable! Meodipt (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I was looking for sourcing specifically for 9b-Phosphaphenalene derivative that this article is about and was not able to find any. Neither of the papers that you have listed mention 9b-Phosphaphenalene in them, while I do not disagree with you that an article about phosphaphenalenes in general could be warranted, I stand by my assessment that 9b-Phosphaphenalene itself does not pass WP:GNG and is not notable. If a page for phosphaphenalenes existed then I could agree that this page could be redirected to it, however as it stands I believe that deletion is the best option. -- Imminent 77   (talk)  20:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * So help make this page into an article about phosphaphenalenes in general then, this example was just the one I happened to come across in 2011. If I had realised at the time that other isomers were more notable I would have made a page about those instead. If the page gets deleted it is very unlikely anyone will make a new page about phosphaphenalenes any time soon, whereas if the page is left then it is easy to improve. WP:PRESERVE! Meodipt (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The particular chemical compound in the title of this article, 9b-phosphaphenalene, is not in any way notable as outlined in the general notability guideline. There is only one scientific paper (the Structural Chemistry paper cited in the article) that specifically mentions this compound.  This paper is only a month old, and 9b-Phosphaphenalene is not the subject of the article.  Also, the paper describes only computational work related to this hypothetical compound: 9b-phosphaphenalene has never actually existed as far as I can tell.  However, there is plenty of literature and scientific research regarding phosphaphenalenes as a class of chemical compounds (some of which have actually been made and have potential applications) as described in the article.  So I think if the article can be generalized, it would be well worth keeping; but if it remains focused on 9b-phosphaphenalene, it should be deleted.  ChemNerd (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok. Agreed 9b-Phosphaphenalene is not notable then, everyone happy to move the page to Phosphaphenalene then and make it about the notable isomer(s) instead? Meodipt (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I have struck out my delete vote and can support a move to phosphaphenalene and redirect 9b-phosphaphenalene to phosphaphenalene. -- Imminent 77   (talk)  18:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  07:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename article to Phosphaphenalene, with a redirect from 9b-Phosphaphenalene. i.e. the oppositie of what it appears currently. I note the article has improved considerably since it was first nominated for deletion. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename to Phosphaphenalene. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.