Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bromochlorofluoroiodomethane


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Bromochlorofluoroiodomethane

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. An apparently nn compound whose only interesting property is that it is chiral, like countless others. We obviously don't and can't have an article for every molecule imaginable. Cf. WP:CRYSTAL #2. (Just by way of comparison, the molecule 5-ethyl-5-propyldecane does not have its own article, despite that, in addition to chirality, it also has the distinction of having a specific rotation of 0, which is very unusual for a chiral compound. And yes, I know WP:WAX.) Tim Song (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Chirality is not in itself a sufficiently interesting property to confer any notability, as there are a near-infinite number of potential molecules that have it. I can't find any discussion of it in any sources outside of occasionally being used as a very simple example to discuss the concept of non-superimposable mirror images in chirality. ~ mazca  talk 12:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The majority of this article actually seems to be a borderline copyvio of Encyclopedia Britannica. ~ mazca  talk 12:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't catch that. Since IMO it's not CSD-able, I just rewrote that part. Now the AfD can run its normal course. Tim Song (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, enough reliable sources exist. See, , and the Britannica almost-copyvio.  Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources, but it seems that, according to the first, the compound has not even been synthesized yet. The second source is trivial IMO, for it could have been anything, so as long as we have 4 different groups on the carbon. Tim Song (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So what if it's not yet been synthesised? We've never been able to achieve time travel, and the 2010 Winter Olympics haven't happened yet — they and articles like them are not prohibited by WP:CRYSTAL because there are plenty of sources on them.  Therefore, as long as we have sufficient sources, we can still write about a not-yet-achieved topic.  Source #2 is a textbook that provides reasonably detailed coverage of something called "bromochlorofluoroiodomethane"; unless I'm mistaken, IUPAC nomenclature prohibits having multiple compounds with the same name, so I can't imagine that it's a different molecule.  Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not citing crystal here. My point is that the second textbook reference could have used any imagined or existing chiral compound (for instance, alanine, or 2-chlorobutane, etc., etc.). That it used this particular compound is a total happenstance, and therefore IMO trivial. Besides, the textbook does nothing but prove that the compound is chiral, which means that it shares a property with (insert any big number here) other molecules out there and nothing more. Is that the standard of inclusion these days? That a molecule is notable simply because one of the hundreds of textbooks out there just happened to pick it to illustrate a problem, a concept, or a reaction? I certainly hope not.


 * The only somewhat non-trivial source, IMO, is the Katritzky one. But I don't think our standard for inclusion should be receiving at least 13 lines' treatment in a 900-page book on organic transformations or target of some theoretical calculations by some random academic somewhere. Tim Song (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a notable molecule, no widespread use, etc. We don't need a page on every single possible combination.  Triplestop  x3  15:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If this is notable enough to be listed in britannica, it's notable enough for wp. riffic (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The argument based on Brittanica is correct. We include everything in other encyclopedias, because if they cover it, its a reliable secondary source and meets the notability requirements.  A hypothetical compound used for the purpose of argument can be as notable as a real one; that it is used as an entry in the textbook by Katritzky cited above is a very sufficient reference. Two good references are sufficient.  The reason it is covered there is because it is   a standard example of the basic principles of stereochemistry. BTW, the nomination gives an excellent argument for writing an article on 5-ethyl-5-propyldecane  -- though I am not certain why it was chosen here as an example of our many millions of missing articles.    DGG ( talk ) 14:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it can also be called something like butylethylpropylpentylmethane (add n- as necessary; also a tetrasubstituted methane), and it's in an organic chemistry textbook that I read a while ago. I've explained my rationale more fully, above. Tim Song (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even if this is an "imaginary" compound it is a popular example, "often mentioned as the prototype of a chiral compound" according to Katritzky. That alone makes it notable in my opinion. The fact that it is mentioned in Britannica corroborates the point. In the worst case, the article could be merged and redirected to halomethane, so no deletion is necessary. --Itub (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: A SciFinder search produces no hits on preparation or reactions of this compound. The search turns up 16 papers which all seem to be theoretical in nature (calculation of heat of formation, etc). In none of these papers does bromochlorofluoroiodomethane appear to be a significant focus of the research (just one compound among many studied).  Under these circumstances I would normally favor deletion under Wikipedia's notability criteria.  But since there are cited secondary sources, including Britannica, I favor keeping.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:41, 20 August 2009 (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.