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. John254 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caesium perchlorate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod, no opinion. The article has been sitting the the notability category for over 8 months and I would like to see if this 2 line article is notable. Diez2 16:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm sure that this compound has been the subject of a number of academic papers. It is only a matter of time before it gets expanded. No harm in leaving this as a stub. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete... I could only find the following references:

M. Senegaonik and S. Paljk. Fallout Analysis of Atmospheric Water Precipitations. Fresenius' Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Volume 232, Number 6 / November, 1967. pp 409-426. ISBN 0937-0633 - (Mentioned in one sentence describing how its isolation is avoided in their method)

US Patent No. 4491529 - (Used as one of the nucleating agents)

Even when searching for "CsClO4", only 170 Google hits were returned, and I could find no non-trivial mentions of this compound. Sancho (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Chemical Abstracts turns up 414 scientific articles for caesium perchlorate. If you want to determine the notability of a chemical compound, use a chemical database to search for it, not Google. --Ed (Edgar181) 21:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good point. I didn't know about this database. We should make a page that directs editors where likely sources for creating an article would be found for non-standard topics, like chemicals, or ... I don't know what else, but I'm sure there are other topics that would appear non-notable through a simple Google search, but in fact have loads of information available if searched for correctly. Sancho (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Edgar181 (note: the {{importance}} tag states "This article lacks information on the notability (importance) of the subject matter.", hence has the assumption the article is notable, but does not state why (hence, such articles do not need to be deleted, they lack a very important part of information). If its notability was questionable, it would use {{notability}}. The reason they are both in the notability category, is that articles which do not state notability/importance may indeed be not-notable. The importance tag has now been removed, hence the articles do now not state anymore that they do not state importance. Hence, they will remain unnoticed for their lack of importance, and unknowing readers will now not understand why this article is here (but at least they do not get prodded or AfD'd). I am sorry for my cynical tone, but I have been contesting a number of these prods/AfD's/retaggings/detaggings, where I do not understand why this seems to be the solution to clearing a backlog; see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Notability#Importance per project). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that the importance tag is indeed worded wrong (because it is being used to imply that there is a notability problem), but that argument is really irrevelent to this AfD. Diez2 22:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

• Keep for now - from the above searches, appears to be salvageable. Addhoc 22:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It just being short does not imply that it must be deleted. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment Just ask a chemist. Its better known as "Cesium Perchlorate". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The spelling may depend on the country; however, "caesium" is the IUPAC-recommended spelling. Itub 08:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment a number of similar inorganic compounds were listed on March 7 for proposed deletion, all by the same editor; but I see that the prod tag has now been removed from all of them, and a comment about notability made. DGG 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've expanded the article a bit to show that it can grow beyond two lines. It will never be extremely long, but there are certainly still more things to be said about this compound. --Itub 09:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice. Thank you! That is the work that I should have done before deciding to vote delete. You are an example to all hasty AfD contributors. Sancho (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 00:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.