Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ions

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of ions[edit]

[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)

The list would be in the millions. Almost every coordination complex, every protein, every RNA, every DNA, every carboxylic acid... So the list should be deleted or the term "ion" should be restricted. Smokefoot (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list of ions will be shorter than the list of inorganic compounds or organic compounds, because many compounds share one ion (like Cl⁻ in NaCl or MgCl₂) and many covalent compounds do not have ions (except for some biomolecules). Also, I think restricting the term "ion" would be a good idea. --Leiem (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The majority of biomolecules, drugs, silicates, . . . . Agricolae (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One possible way forward would be to restrict to notable ions, i.e., those with articles of their own. Category:Ions has many entries, but it is not in the millions. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a "bluelinks only" rule might be viable here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Millions is an exaggeration, but Category:Ions is vastly underused. Category:Proteins, Category:Peptides, Category:Hormones, Category:Neurotransmitters, Category:Drugs, Category:Silicates, Category:Nucleotides, Category:Nucleosides, Category:Phospholipids, Category:Steroids . . . . Some of these overlap, but in all of these categories and more, the items that actually represent chemicals are (almost) all ions, amounting to a count of existing pages that I suspect would easily top 10 thousand bluelink entries. Central to the problem is that there are two uses of 'ions': the technical definition that includes all of these groups of molecules, and the common-language usage, where one is referring to the relatively small charged compounds aren't also members of the above categories. This is a convenient usage, but is only a subset of those items that meet the formal definition of 'ions'. Without a limitation to the common usage, any list of ions would be unwieldy and unmanageable, yet I seriously doubt you could find a reliable source that gives a definition consistent with this limited use that would allow coherent criteria for what does and does not belong on an abbreviated list. Still, such a limited definition is clearly what is in mind on the List of ions page, the List of polyatomic ions page (also AfDed), and the table of 'common' ions on the ions page. I don't see how to get around this problem - if we use the formal definition it is unmanageable, but any attempt to formalize a common-usage definition would be editor-generated and somewhat arbitrary, rather than source-based. Agricolae (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wish that millions were an exaggeration, but I guess the number depends on definitions. Soil is comprised of ions. Intracellular fluids have lots of ions. As an inorganic chemist, we make it our business to be picky about simple things (and inevitably a little annoying, sorry). But take MgCl₂ in water probably contains [Mg(H₂O)₆]²⁺ and [Mg(H₂O)₅Cl]⁺ and when this solution is vaporized (as in a mass spectrometer), many daughter ions are generated of the type [Mg(H₂O)_n]²⁺ and [Mg(H₂O)_nC]⁺. Then there might be conjugate bases such as [Mg(OH)H₂O)₅]⁺. And magnesium is one of the easy ones, try ferric or molybdates.

We may be talking past each other here. I am not questioning that there are millions of ionic compounds - from a biology perspective, with >30,000 proteins per species and millions of species, even if 90% of the proteins are identical, inter-species, that is still a whole lot of distinct ionic compounds. I just don't think there are millions of Wikipedia pages on ionic compounds. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - I promise not to badger the list maker since the effort is well intentioned and perhaps my notions are esoteric or cranky. One idea: define simple anions as ≤5 non-H atoms and 1-, 2-, 3-. That kind of definition would caption the main ones sulfates, phosphates. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it seems an arbitrary cutoff. You would catch a phosphate, but not a pyrophosphate. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some common ions would be excluded such as [Fe(CN)₆]³⁻ and Cr
₂O²⁻
₇. --Leiem (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our page on buffer solution lists numerous ions that would be excluded by this cutoff, citric acid/citrate (C₆H₅O₇^3-) plus the entire table of 'Common buffer compounds used in biology'. I don't see a delineation based on atom number being discriminating enough. Agricolae (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need a definition that will exclude complex ions that would already be covered by an article on a closely related chemical eg stearate where the article is about substances that contain the entity, but not the ion, and which will be covered in stearic acid. However there are ions that are notable in their own right, that could appear in a list. The list should not include those topics found in list of inorganic compounds or Glossary of chemical formulas or Inorganic compounds by element. So we should keep a list like this, but have suitable inclusion criteria. Some idea of what could also go in here: Fluoroanion and Oxyanion but if we only allow blue links, it would stop the bloat possibility. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate list. There are literally thousands of ions and these would be better presented in various sub-groups. Ajf773 (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would be a limitless list. If someone would like to recreate a list of some subset of all ions, I think it should first have clearly defined criteria for inclusion and also have clear consensus among editors that this criteria defines some useful encyclopedic purpose. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the criteria for inclusion in the first paragraph in order to restrict the list. The criteria can be changed after discussion. --Leiem (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a criteria just to artificially limit the size of the list to something manageable isn't rational. Limiting it to ions with only 5 atoms as you've proposed is entirely arbitrary. An important ion such as hexafluorophosphate, for example, will be excluded but an obscure one like GeO₃^2- gets included. Why? Without any criteria that serves some useful encyclopedic purpose, the list has little value. Propose the criteria first, get consensus among other editors that it has value, and then (and only then) start making the list. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unmaintainable and much better as a category. shoy (reactions) 17:36, 8 August 2018 (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.