Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prices of elements and their compounds

:{{la|Prices of elements and their compounds}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prices_of_elements_and_their_compounds Stats])

:({{Find sources|Prices of elements and their compounds}})

This page in completely unmanageable. The prices of elements and compounds can vary considerably in very short time spans making the information contained here completely unreliable unless it is updated very often such as weekly. Most of the article content is currently way out of date and therefore highly inaccurate. Prices also vary considerably depending on source, purity, quantity and many other market factors. How could we possibly list all possible and/or relevant product price variations? By including chemical compounds, this list is also almost unlimited in scope - each element can have literally hundreds of different compounds. There is simply no practical way to present this kind of fluid, variable, time-sensitive information as an encyclopedia article. This page is also a magnet for advertisers - for example, it includes dozens of links to metal-pages.com which has been spammed across multiple Wikipedia articles. If there is a need for the inclusion in Wikipedia of the price of specific element or chemical compounds, it would be best handled at the corresponding element/compound article instead. ChemNerd (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Very strange and inconsistent article having prices taken from various times in the past. Not fixable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Wildly, madly unworkable. WP:INDISCRIMINATE too. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep it is both notable and interesting. The fact taht it is poorly maintained is not a reason for deletion. We don't delete stubs. Nergaal (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. It gives an order of magnitude estimate of prices. An interesting topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC).
• Keep--the topic is notable and interesting. Really one of the better topics for a list (even though the treatment is not there yet). Yes, the article is not well organized or maintained, but so is most of Wikipedia. It has many RSes and with enough effort could be made into a masterpiece. The table includes the date, source, and caveats associated with the pricing. I don't expect us to track the every day gyrations of some commodity prices, but the real value is in the relative magnitudes as Xxanthippe says and the compilation of price estimates for non-traded elements from many disparate sources. Improvements could be to make the table sortable, and retitle to be prices of the elements (the complaint about that is a tickytack one...read the article and it is clear that there is no intention to track all compound prices, just that some elements are only priced as within the compound.) TCO (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Badly organised and formatted but with much potential. Sandbh (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per TCO and Sandbh. Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Perhaps mentioning what the prices were all at one point in time would be more useful. A line chart listing information about them all year by year would be very useful also. Its encyclopedic to show what elements are worth over time, all together so you can compare them. Dream Focus 00:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete An odd case and maybe it could be salvaged, but ultimately I agree with ChemNerd that, "If there is a need for the inclusion in Wikipedia of the price of specific element or chemical compounds, it would be best handled at the corresponding element/compound article instead." This article does appear unworkable. Bondegezou (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

:::I don't think that it would be "best handled at the corresponding element/compound article instead." There is value in having the comparative information available in one place rather than scattered around. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC).

• Keep, but definitely needs cleanup. I don't see the problem with fluctuating prices as long as we have "as of" statements and it's a pretty common thing to list. That said, we ought make the list a lot more complete and use prices of pure elements not compounds wherever possible. ^King Jakob _C2 20:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

: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.