Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francium 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 was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francium fluoride

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Procedural nomination; I am neutral. PRODded and then BLAR'd shortly after creation in 2008. Restored by consensus at RfD just now, with agreement to take to AfD. Courtesy pings @Mdewman6, 1234qwer1234qwer4, Lenticel, and Thryduulf. I'll ping IP65 the old-fashioned way.

PROD rationale in '08 by User:Itub was:

very little is known about this compound, and none of it is reflected in this speculative stub. If anyone wants to add actual referenced facts, they can fit with no trouble in the francium article. The only references I could find are a handful of Russian papers from the 1960s and 1970s

Itub later BLAR'd it while the PROD was pending.

BLAR rationale by User:PlanetStar was: Francium fluoride is very likely to exist because francium is, like other alkali metals, can react with fluorine to form fluorides; and add expand and unreferenced templates

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected a mixup on my part as to who did what when. PlanetStar's quoted ES was in defense of the page, which he created. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are added to the article discussing francium flouride. It's fine if these are just hypothetical sources, but there needs to be some discussion of this somewhere for it to be encyclopedic. BD2412 T 00:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cringe when I see these old, unsourced articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaktree b (talk • contribs) 00:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now due to reliable sources issues --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: compare with Francium hydroxide, which at least has a couple sources. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reliable sources (calculations, etc.) are needed. --Leiem (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this can be sourced, it should merge into electronegativity -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. Possibly could be merged to a relevent article. Bobherry Talk Edits 03:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Experimental and theoretical studies have found that francium is likely actually slightly less electronegative than caesium, due to relativistic corrections. So the lone statement of this article is probably incorrect. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article stinks. No content and barely any edits in 13 years. Into the bin with it. –D2h (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources were added. This qualifies for speedy deletion, as one cannot assume that the subject is common knowledge or notable. Multi7001 (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this article is misleading, and looks to be (wrong) original research. For example the compound may have been made in Russia. I found 3 sources though, so a valid article might be rewritten from scratch. [1] [2] and [3]. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2022 (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.