- 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT. The nominator is now proposing simply "reducing the article to a stub." While I agree with more experienced editors that a better way forward might be to reference what we have rather than cut it back -- any such improvements don't require an Afd and we're looking at a WP:SNOWy keep. Further discussions should take place on the article talk page. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Chemical compound ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article has very little value because of its very small amount of sources and should be deleted so a better article can be made on a clean slate. Iamaplayer33 ( talk) 19:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Informative article on important concept. Ridiculous nomination.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
21:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC).
- Although the lead and definions sections have some value, all the other sections have no sources. Maybe only the offending sections could be deleted, reducing the article to a stub. Iamaplayer33 ( talk) 17:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Delete is not the answer as we clearly need an article with this title. I hope the WP:CHEMISTRY can work on it. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Notable and reasonably written. Should be improved, not destroyed.-- Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 01:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. This article dates to the early days of Wikipedia. At that time it was felt to be not necessary to provide references for material that was well-known enough to be in textbooks. Many, many science and math articles have few references even today for that reason. Deleting them and starting over is not a good solution. Even mass labeling of sections as having no sources is not a good idea. Put a single tag at the top, look at some textbooks, and provide sources. StarryGrandma ( talk) 04:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- As there is now a HUGE tag atop the article declaring this problem for all to see, I've removed all the subsequent sourcing tags per WP:TAGBOMB. I've left the tag that claims there is a factual accuracy issue in one particular section, though. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep the solution is not to delete it, the solution is to add references. Having recently brought ionic compound up from a state like this, and now nominated it for Good Article, I have experience in this area. Referencing such simple stuff is sometimes tedious and dull, but it is never difficult to find a source. Iamaplayer33, you seem new around here. I suggest having a go at finding a source for some of these statements. Grab a General Chemistry textbook, and pitch in. If you need help, you're welcome to contact me or WikiProject Chemistry. -- 99of9 ( talk) 05:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep This is a fundamental article in the field of chemistry and there are already more than enough sources to establish notability. If it needs more sources, add them. Alansohn ( talk) 16:01, 24 January 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.