Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxygen tetrafluoride

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen tetrafluoride

[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)

A hypothetical compound whose problems with existence start with the two extra electrons the first reference admits to and goes on from there—but not for very long, I have to suspect, given how nasty oxygen difluoride is already and how desperately those two extra fluorine atoms probably want to break free. At any rate, it doesn't have a CAS number and there's nothing here that suggests that there's any empirical validation of any property of the stuff, much less that anyone has any idea of how to synthesize it. Mangoe (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just because the compound is hypothetical and almost impossible to exist doesn’t mean it should have its own article. Take radon hexafluoride for example. Brachy08 _(Talk) 04:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to delete the latter. The article on hexafluorides doesn't mention a radon version, and neither should we. Mangoe (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: Delete. Athel cb (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate coverage of something that doesn't exist. Reywas92^Talk 13:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hypothetical compounds can certainly be notable, but this one hasn't been the subject of any systematic study that I can find. "Predictions" about donor-acceptor interactions are not systematic study, and one of the two papers cited for that claim never mentions the compound at all, only lists it in a table alongside a bunch of other oxygen-fluorine compounds they admit probably cannot exist. Database entries do not count toward notability, and this compound doesn't even have that: No CAS number, nothing in PubChem or Chemspider. The article cites an AP Chemistry study guide as a source, for crying out loud. Come on. I could draw a helium atom with nineteen vanadium atoms bonded to it; does that mean WP should have an article on "helium nonadecavanadide"? Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above, especially User:WeirdNAnnoyed.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is a merge or redirect to Oxygen fluoride worth considering as an WP:ATD? ~Kvng (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the OF article does no more than mention OF₄, I think not. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxygen trifluoride. ~Kvng (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:WeirdNAnnoyed. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the list can be endless if we made a list of “possible” compounds

FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:28, 3 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.