Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organoargon chemistry


 * 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 merge to Argon compounds. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Organoargon chemistry

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No sources at all even mention "Organoargon chemistry". Nothing on Google Scholar or Google Books, or regular Google. Not surprising, even "organoargon" is hardly in use as a term. Not a notable field of chemistry. Fram (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm no expert on chemistry so reading through all of the comments, I can't decipher whether the consensus is to Keep or Merge to Argon compounds. There does seem to be consensus that this article content shouldn't be deleted but debate continues on its destination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (I created the article): article has significant sources. The term "organoargon" can be found in use, but with a hyphen, e.g. in these papers: one (Other organo–argon and organo-silicon molecules derived from the above should be equally stable), two (Equilibrium structures, vibrational properties, and stabilities of organo-argon compounds), three (theoretical calculations have discussed the existence of whole families of organo-argon compounds), four (this study adds to the list of possible organo-argon compounds ... characterized theoretically as well as two new organo-argon molecules). I titled it without the hyphen and as "organoargon chemistry" per the guideline at WP:CHEMGROUP and consistency with the organometallics. Naturally it's a fairly new and small field, since its subject did not experimentally exist till this century. An alternative might be to merge it into Argon compounds, but that is already quite long. Double sharp (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If the guidelines of some project urge you to create a WP:NEOLOGISM, then you should ignore (or better yet revise) these guidelines. Fram (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * From the first paper: Thus, FArCCH is a gateway to a whole family of molecules, to organo-argon chemistry. It's not a neologism. We may argue about the hyphen, but Google gives a hit to Lomonosov State University for the hyphenless form: the quote Google shows me (I can't access the site for some reason) is (4) theoretical analysis of stability and development of experimental approaches to synthesis of organoargon compounds (molecules with H-Ar-C- fragment). Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * the combination "organoargon chemistry" is a neologism, there are (like I said) a few (a very few though) hits for "organoargon" as such. Fram (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have literally just quoted a case of that exact combination from here: Thus, FArCCH is a gateway to a whole family of molecules, to organo-argon chemistry. Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * With the hyphen, yes. See my comments about your guidelines above. Creating an article at a title which is never used, because there are a few sources which use a similar but different title, is not helpful. Fram (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It then seems like the debate is not about whether the topic exists/is notable enough, but about the title. That seems more a thing for WP:RM than for WP:AFD. I also wonder how significant it is, when searching for "organoargon" without the hyphen in Google Scholar gets you the hyphenated versions just as well. Analogously, the fact that nobody has actually spelt out the name of CsAt in a paper (though the compound itself has been referred to by formula) does not make it a neologism to write "caesium astatide" when referring to it; that's just following common nomenclature rules. I argue that this is the same kind of situation. Double sharp (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (multiple edit conflicts, please don't constantly change your posts) Searching for "organoargon chemistry" (the topic at hand) in Google Scholar gets "zero" results. "Organo-argon chemistry" (with the hyphen) gives, er, 2. So on the one hand this hyphen "is" significant" and I based my AfD on the actual article title you chose (a bit hard to guess that some other title might be better): and on the other hand should we have an article on a topic with just 2 Google Scholar hits and noGoogle Books results at all? A redirect or merge might be better here, no matter the title. Fram (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with a merge into Argon compounds, though that's already very long. My opinion is that the hyphen or lack thereof is simply a style choice, like caesium vs cesium. Double sharp (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Though it also seems that most studies are comparative with the organokrypton and organoxenon analogues, or discuss this as generally part of organo-noble gas chemistry (e.g. this or this or this or this). So perhaps another answer could be merging this, organokrypton chemistry, and organoxenon chemistry into a single article on organo-noble gas chemistry, though as usual Xe would dominate and maybe that one should be kept separate. Double sharp (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Argon compounds. While the term organo-argon (hyphenated) appears to be very much in use, sourcing is still very limited; I haven't found anything in the literature not linked above or in the article. Additionally, half the stub deals with hypothetical compounds, and recent sources haven't turned up, in particular no updates regarding the mentioned hypothetical compounds. As such, I'm not convinced there's enough to sustain a standalone article here, and I don't believe merging will decisively make the target article too long. No comment with respect to krypton as I have not investigated that matter (pun intended). Complex / Rational  16:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * DMacks found additional sources below, which I used to expand the article. Double sharp (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Argon compounds, not enough content to stand on its own. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 16:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, or possibly merge to Ng–C article . Compounds containing argon–carbon bonding were still being studied over a decade after the original 2003 article, by multiple research groups. For example, argon bonded to methyl, nitrile, and acetylene, and those same groups in addition to a fluorine on the argon, are analyzed in 10.1002/qua.24804 (2014), so those are clearly "organo-argon" (of whatever punctuation); 10.1063/1.4766326 (2012) also looks at FAr–acetylide anions theoretically. Broadening a bit, 10.1021/jp410631y from 2013 studies XArCO+, which is argon–carbon, but uncertain if it would be considered "organo" vs a "carbonyl complex". That appears to be multiple research groups publishing about these things in WP:RS. There is nothing in the notability guidelines that says a chemical has to exist, or even possibly exist, in order to merit an article...notability is based on discussion in lit, which surely includes purely theoretical studies. I don't think merging into argon compounds is best if we wanted to merge it. These articles almost universally discuss the argon ones as part of a set with other noble-gases, so I think there would be lots of redundancy in each noble-gas's article. Better to have a unified article about the noble-gas–carbon compounds if there is consensus not to have an article solely on the argon subset (if certain noble gas's compounds are notable enough as a subset, they can spin out of the Ng–C class article). DMacks (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article with the sources you posted. Double sharp (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 10.1039/D2CP01523D (2022) discusses formation of various Ar–C species as potentially occurring in the atmospheres of various planets and moons, and that these structures are a useful type for studying several types of reaction-mechanisms. DMacks (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 10.1007/s10876-021-02052-1 (2022) is theoretical analysis of several organo-argon compounds with respect to non-linear optical properties. We're getting lots of different types of analysis in several decades of publications, some specific to argon–carbon covalent molecules (broader sense including covalent-unit ions), not solely generalities to the noble-gases group. I think it's enough to spin out of argon based on amount of detail and range of different subtopics. DMacks (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And just for kicks, 10.1021/j100115a015 is from 1993, and cites multiple refs of synthetic work back to 1979, of van der Waals molecules containing specifically argon, and use of them as test-cases to develop various theories. DMacks (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect The two actual "compounds" (which are ions) are already mentioned in the argon compounds article in the argon compounds. But one reference could be added. I would say that "Organoargon chemistry" is not a notable topic. These ions are outside the realm of organic chemistry study, therefore "organo" is a bit inappropriate. Putting them together in an article might be a bit of a synthesis. However I would be happy enough to see a mention of "organo-argon" in the argon compounds article. The argon compounds article has avoided hypothetical compounds, as there are enough real argon ions and real molecules to provide content. DMacks idea of a noble-gas–carbon compounds sounds OK too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In the paper about ArCF2(2+), it is called an organoargon species: More generally, the experimental evidence (Figure 1) in conjunction with the theoretical data (Figure 2) is clear proof for the existence of the metastable ArCF22+ dication, a new kind of organo-argon species in the gas phase. This is perhaps somewhat wishful wording considering that ions are not bottlable, but it shows that a group working on this is happy to consider cations as part of the organoargon umbrella. Double sharp (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That paper identifies the relevant reaction as unique to argon among the noble gases, which could help drive Ar–C as own article or else an additional detail for Ng–C class article that everything isn't just "all Ng are analogous". DMacks (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge content as a separate section in Argon compounds and make it a redirect. That would provide a better organization of content I think (agree with Graeme Bartlett). Do not delete this page to keep editing history. My very best wishes (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2022 (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.