Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OgTs₄

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 merge to Oganesson#Predicted compounds. czar 04:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

OgTs₄

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

OgTs₄ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded while providing only a primary source for this predicted compound of two elements too unstable to conduct chemical experiments. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• weak deletekeep Normally I would want to delete articles about theoretical things that only one publication exists for. But there is also this: https://cen.acs.org/physical-chemistry/theoretical-chemistry/Introducing-oganesson-tetratennesside/99/i23 a secondary publication on it. However if the popular press pick up on it, then I would change vote to keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not a chemist. I encountered the topic through a Finnish popular tech magazine article. Cyberixae (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • OK given that article, I change my vote to weak keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I was the one who deprodded this, and based on the information above, I agree it's a weak keep. Walter Loveland, the individual who published the research on this is an absolute powerhouse in nuclear chemistry and am very apt to trust work he's done. Though a single primary source is not enough on it's own, that was enough to make me deprod it. With the finding of an article in a tech magazine that tips me over to a weak keep point as well. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 19:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Oganesson#Predicted_compounds. Some sources exist but there is not enough coverage for an independent article. Polyamorph (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested. It's not yet seen, but it reasonably predicted Bearian (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a fascinating theoretical possibility, but it remains just a possibility. In particular, this possible compound can only exist if the calculations are correct, and in the absence of corroborating documentation I don't think we can take this for granted. Don't get me wrong: if this compound is found to exist it will definitely merit its own article as the first of a family of superheavy stable compounds, but right now we have no empirical evidence for its existence and only one theoretical paper. This simply doesn't meet our criteria. RomanSpa (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Oganesson#Predicted compounds, as suggested by Polyamorph. I find the arguments in favour of deletion unpersuasive considering that we have a perfect place to merge this into. Likewise, I think the arguments in favour of keeping the article are undercut significantly by the existence of a perfect merge target. Merging seems to me an ideal solution. TompaDompa (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested above. It's clearly not notable enough for a standalone article, but the underlying research is legit, and there exists a proper article for merging. Tercer (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Oganesson#Predicted compounds as suggested above. There already is some relevant material in that section, including a theory paper from 1999. XOR'easter (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2021 (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.