Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potassium nitrate (data page)

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

Potassium nitrate (data page)

[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)

Those information can find at the article's chembox
This page not even looks like a data page Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete as superfluous given the main article. This one looks suspiciously like a manufacturer's safety data sheet. Elemimele (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing important here that is not in the main article. Athel cb (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Rightly or wrongly, the consensus is that common chemical compounds have data pages on Wikipedia, so users are likely to look for this content. It's verifiable and expandable.—S Marshall T/C 17:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, based on that consensus I'll strike my comment (I didn't know about that consensus, and while I'll accept it's consensus, I don't like it!). In this particular instance, I still think there's a big problem with the current data-page, big enough to justify TNT. It's full of instructions relating to North American organisations, referred to in abbreviated form that mean nothing to anyone in the rest of the world, and from this, together with its wording, I suspect it's been transcribed more-or-less word-perfect from some organisation or supplier's MSDS. It may even be a copyright issue, if only we knew whose MSDS it is. For example: "Wear appropriate personal protective equipment as specified in Section 8." (section 8 of what??), "...should be handled as hazardous waste and sent to a RCRA approved waste facility" (eh? what's RCRS?), "Please refer to the ACGIH document, Industrial Ventilation, A Manual of Recommended Practices, most recent edition, for details." ummm, that's not a citation, sounds like a quote, and isn't appropriate advice outside the US. Elemimele (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: Where is that previous consensus? It seems like there may be consensus building to merge these pages to wikidata... Mako001 (C) (T) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 06:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that Wikidata was the natural home for such content - at least the quantifiable physical information. This article was created a long time before Wikidata existed, so it might have been a good idea at the time. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: it looks like there's a new consensus building on WT:Wikiproject chemicals about data pages. Striking my keep for the time being.—S Marshall T/C 11:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Leyo 21:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there's anthing here (I haven't checked) worth adding to wikidata:Q177836 then this should be transwikied and merged there before being deleted from Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early close, wait for ongoing discussion. Article is part of a 140P set "(data page)" merge/delete/keep discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals § Chemical data pages cleanup (WP:DPCLEANUP). Straight deletion is disputed. The issue is foremost WP:CHEMICALS content & chemical data, so not suited for XfD this way yet.

I propose an early close, and allow the discussion to bear fruit first. For sure, this actual XfD should not interfere with or prejudge that discussion. -DePiep (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a better, more coordinated, way to approach this topic than picking off a few articles for deletion discussions here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(thx for support. all are working in GF btw. -DePiep (talk) 10:51, 2 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.