Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthocarbonic acid

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 Snowball Keep --JForget 23:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orthocarbonic acid

Wikipedia is not a crystal box. A Google search for "orthocarbonic acid" -Wikipedia gave 676 hits. I would not object to the survival of this article if it was expanded, explaining why orthocarbonic acid is any more relevant than, e.g., the compound obtained by replacing oxygen atoms with sulphur atoms in glucose, citing relevant sources. Note that neither of the other two hypothetical compounds cited in the article has a individual article. Army1987 (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Check Google Scholar, there are quite a few hits. The article needs expansion and attention from an expert on the subject, not deletion. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search on Google turns up several reliable-looking sources. Needs some work, and the addition of references, but I think it's notable enough to be kept. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's more to notability than ghits. I'll try to expand this article if I get time.NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite notable, if you check Google Scholar, you get sources that are reliable. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've rewritten the article and added some sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hypothetical compounds can be notable for theoretical reasons or for being used as base names in systematic nomenclature. I believe the sources added by Tim Vickers are enough to establish this. --Itub (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Google scholar lists plenty of viable sources; if nothing else, it's a base name in systematic nomenclature, per above; that alone would be enough for me. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:32, 19 June 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.