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 03:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cesium hydride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete no indication that this chemical compound is notable; there are probably millions of chemical compounds and there aren't all notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no references, not notable. Macy (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Cesium hydride is a compound of cesium and hydrogen"? Tautology, and I can't find anything which suggests that there's any significant use for this compound. Keep based on the citations RJH's found. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Give it time. It has only just been created. It will be expanded. However, it should be moved to Caesium hydride, which is the correct internationally accepted spelling for this element and the one used for other Caesium compounds. --Bduke (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. One can find some notable uses for this compound just through a quick google books search. I'm sure much more can be found by searching the scientific literature. --Itub (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—First observation of light-induced particle formation in metal vapors.[1] Showed promise in early studies of an ion propulsion system using cesium.[2] There will only be a limited number of binary compounds, and wikipedia isn't paper.—RJH (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why can't millions of compounds be notable? If there are peer-reviewed papers published which discuss them then they are notable, whether there are thousands, millions or billions of them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that a reasonable standard might be that they appear in more than one paper. it's customary to make long series of derivatives and analogues. I think the usual figure is that 90% of so of chemicals never do, and are thus curiosities of interest only to very narrow specialists. It will take us many years to get the other 10% properly covered. DGG (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Many articles in wikipedia chemicals started like this. Notability is not necessarily linked to usage.--Axiosaurus (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a chemical must be included in a encyclopedia because it can be the source of a later work. For example, how do you know this chemical will not be involved in the discovery of the cure for HIV? then it will not be discovered because one of its precursors will not be listed in encyclopedias. --Sebastian Palacios (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I've already changed my mind here, inclusion in an encyclopedia is based on what is known, not what might be discovered someday. Scientists have their own directories of chemical compounds - the absence of an article for one here will certainly not hinder scientific progress. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:57, 22 March 2008 (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.