Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bromodifluoroacetylchloride

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

[edit] Bromodifluoroacetylchloride

Keep (nomination withdrawn) by Diez2

Bromodifluoroacetylchloride (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Has been prodded and de-prodded many times. There is no information on the substance in question other than its chemical formula and IUPAC official name. There is no verification either. I'm sure the article could be expanded (maybe), and I would really like to prod this (so that anyone can raise it back from the dead), but I would like to have this deleted until anyone can come up with more info on the substance. Diez2 15:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
*Delete unless someone can show this substance exists somewhere, even theoretically, other than a list of compounds put together in a textbook. Citicat 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Now Neutral as per Beetstra Citicat 19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no ghits other than wikipedia mirrors and random-word spam sites. JulesH 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reacts with deletium peroxide to form /dev/null and a brief mention in the middle of the bromide yellow pages (red pages?). Flakeloaf 17:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a real-world compound. NIST has a mass spectrum of it, and it's commercially available (from Matrix Scientific and Oakwood Chemical). Asking for "Verification" of data such as MW and formula doesn't make sense...they are "obvious" from the name. DMacks 18:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't doubt its existence, but aside from "This compound exists" the article is completely devoid of content. Does every chemical compound in existence merit its own encyclopedia entry? Flakeloaf 19:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• True. I was responding to the above comments suggesting it isn't even real. However, I'd say Delete, unless it's somehow practically useful or scientifically interesting in some way.Keep, now that it's got a documented use. I don't think we have good guidelines for notability of chemicals, so "it's got a documented use and is available" makes it viable for me. DMacks 19:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Added a use to it (though there are not many uses for this compound reported). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As a contributor to many chemical articles on Wikipedia, my bias is towards creating and keeping as many as is feasible. But there are ~30 million chemical compounds reported in scientific literature - and they were all made for some purpose. I can find no evidence in Chemical Abstracts that this compound has been used more than a few times as a minor intermediate in producing something else. There has to be a higher level of notability than the minimal utility this compound displays in order to deserve a Wikipedia page. I suspect this page may have been created as a test - even the original author posted a "delete" comment of the article's talk page in response to one of the earlier proposed deletions. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep since sources and a use have been found. Krimpet 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per Krimpet --Lee Vonce 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If it has a source for its usage, it's good enough. However, if it were a musician rather than a chemical, I might vote for deletion for its having less than 50 nonwiki ghits. YechielMan 03:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• No comment: I think we should... Oh yah! I can't leave a comment as per WP:SOCK --SockingIt 07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Withdrawn Seeing minor improvements, I withdraw this nomination, although I still believe the article needs to be expanded greatly. Diez2 16:42, 1 February 2007 (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.