Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radon hexafluoride

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radon hexafluoride

[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)

Another unreal chemical: the only significant reference I've found is this paper discussing whether there is something interesting in the calculated properties of the molecule. It's not mentioned in hexafluoride. It's hard to imagine what one could do with an chemical of which half of it is already transmuted into a variety of other substances while dumping out large quantities of alpha particles, but at any rate there seems to be nothing of substance to say about this. Mangoe (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I was strongly in favor of deleting the articles on oxygen trifluoride and oxygen tetrafluoride, but for this one I'm on the fence, because (unlike those molecules) this one does have some theoretical studies behind it (cited in the article). But those sources are primary, and the compound is likely never going to be of any more than theoretical interest, so my "keep" is not very committed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as at least some references discuss it. This is also listed in some databases - not that these show notability though, and the chances are that this will be made one day. Unlike those oxygenfluorides! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With only two weak keeps I'd like to see more discussion and input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 23:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scientific Reports is not a great journal, but further sources did turn up, including one that I'd call secondary, Seppelt (2015). I think this clears the bar for being article-worthy. XOR'easter (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2023 (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.