Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copper(II) fluoride


 * 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The result of this was Speedy Keep (nomination withdrawn) Diez2 14:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Copper(II) fluoride

 * — (View AfD)

No information in the article. All this gives is the melting point and boiling point of the compound, and nothing else. Diez2 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The topic has the possibility of being notable, but the article in its current form does not have any value. TSO1D 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep No sense in deletion, article should probably be expanded, but AfD is not the place to do that. It's a real chemical compound, and as such, meets verifiability, notability, and anything else you might name.  I'd actually need some reason why it shouldn't have an article, not just complaints about the article's current state. FrozenPurpleCube 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a guideline for the notability of chemical compounds? Diez2 01:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't know, try asking at WP:Chem. FrozenPurpleCube 02:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand; alternative, redirect to ... someplace. There must be a broader article about copper or fluorine compounds though I don't know the chem pages well enough to find it. Newyorkbrad 00:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand if possible. The compound exists, and mustbtherefore be encyclopedic.--Anthony.bradbury 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just because the article is not currently a "spiffy" article, that doesn't necessarily call for a delete. We may possibly rename it Copper fluoride, too.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't recommend that since based on what I recall of Chemistry, the II has a meaningful value, so I would prefer keeping it at the proper name unless someone expert in chemistry can say it won't cause a problem. FrozenPurpleCube 03:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Copper(I) fluoride would be an entirely different chemical. One or the other may trivially be called "copper fluoride" but the roman numerical is part of the technical name and required for being unambiguous. DMacks 03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Simple binary chemical compounds are sufficiently rare and elemental to chemistry to be inherently encyclopedic. -Toptomcat 04:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem I have with this article is that it doesn't appear to me to have any special significance. There are some binary compounds that are important, but are all important enough on their own to warrant a separate article? Then why arbitrarily draw the line there, why not include tertiary compounds as well or go even higher? What I am trying to say is that certain compounds are important through the properties they possess or their history but we shouldn't generalize notability criteria for an entire class. Can anyone who voted to keep the article please explain why this specific compound is of special interest? TSO1D 04:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a 'notability criteria' for chemicals. Keep, and please don't rename :) Copper(II) fluoride is very different to copper(I) fluoride! I'll see if I can expand the article a little. Riana 07:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Added a proper chembox, but I can't find much information on it. I'll drop a line over at WikiProject Chemicals. Riana 07:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a chemical which is used in polymerisation chemistry (at least two scientific references), and has been studied in relation to dental plaque/caries (also at least 2 scientific references). Also, a google search on "Copper(II) fluoride) results in 388 results (december 13, 2006), and I guess that numerous of the 22,300 hits on "copper fluoride" also pertain copper(II) fluoride.  Enough to tell about this chemical.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, the substance is used in organic synthesis and has a bunch of references even to a science paper! (added very recent, :-))--Stone 10:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep In general, I think chemical compounds should have some unusual property or a notable use to be included in Wikipedia. With the information Stone and others added, this article meets that requirement. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep at this point, the article should not be eligible for AfD anymore. --Rifleman 82 12:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has been improved could do with a bit more but needs an expand not a delete tag. Also as there is no Copper(I) Fluoride, should Copper Fluoride redirect here and comment on other forms be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1481 (talk • contribs)


 * Withdrawn After having seen major improvements, I withdraw this nomination. Diez2 14:18, 13 December 2006 (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.