Talk:Carbylamine-choline-chloride

RFC
Article serves only to prop up a suspect article with a prestige link. Title does not follow chemistry guidelines. Subject of the article does not check out with Google Scholar: Scholar shows only Volodarsky's work, and none of the listings cite Volodarsky for the article's subject. In short, no scholars ever write about Carbylamine-choline-chloride. They write about other things that Voladarsky writes about in his book, but not C-c-c. It may even not exist, as far as we know. Anarchangel (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm the original author of this article. If I remember correctly my reason for researching this subject was exactly that I couldn't find any good articles about it, and I wanted it expanded. I found there's already been a discussion about this at Talk:Poison_laboratory_of_the_Soviet_secret_services BFG (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is more space occupied on the wiki now that the exact same information is repeated, but that is hardly a good thing. Needless to say it is not a good article now, either, nor can it ever be, since there is no other information on the subject available in the three sources, which are the only sources on the subject at all. The discussion on the other talk page is an idle waft of inconclusive speculation and can only cast doubt on the verifiability and notability of the subject of poison labs itself, let alone the poisons supposedly created. I only lack confidence in carrying an article to AfD or I would surely have done so already. I ask that someone else does, and if they do not, then I suppose I will have to. This crumpled up scrap of waste paper posing as an article shall not stand. It is bad enough that it has already generated misinformation on the web; search for Carbylamine-choline-chloride and you will see what I mean. Anarchangel (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If your intent is to put the article up for deletion (which, as far as I can gather, is the solution you're pushing for, given that your problem is with the basic concept of the article), you should just send it to WP:AFD and close this RFC. An RFC can't really resolve a problem as basic as the one you're alleging here, and asking people to go through an RFC over whether to put an article on AFD seems like a waste of everyone's time - just let AfD decide. --Aquillion (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's actually a good idea to put the article up for deletion and take the discussion. There are a few other sources out there, but the 3 sources listed are books and not weblinks, although I have no illusions there may also be crappy books published. I take offense about the characterization that the article is a "crumpled up scrap of waste paper". It's a stub like many other stubs, and may be expanded. If there's any misinformation that's a transitive error based on the sources. I am in no way an expert on the subject matter. While it's difficult to prove a negative, there are 3 books from 3 different authors, confirming the existence of the substance. An alternative to deletion may be to add Template:Unreliable Sources BFG (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "the victims change physically, become shorter, weaken quickly, become calm and silent, and die within fifteen minutes. The poison is odorless, tasteless and cannot be detected by autopsy." Presumably if someone comes in for autopsy who became shorter in their last 15 minutes, that's a clue.  E Eng  04:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge with Poison laboratory of the Soviet secret services. Certainly not enough content to keep as an article. Maproom (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect. The only useful information here is already present at Poison laboratory of the Soviet secret services. I think that the quickest and easiest way to go is to simply make this page a redirect to there, which can be done without opening any new discussions. I cannot see anything else here that would need to be merged, and there's nothing wrong with keeping this pagename as a redirect. Unless there are objections, I'd be happy to do that soon. (And +1 to what EEng said about getting "shorter"!) --Tryptofish (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, if I was going to a wedding you wouldn't be my +1. No offense.  E Eng  15:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you can expect a sudden poisoning and loss of height in your future, comrade. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Loss of stature" would have been funnier.  E Eng  15:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I wondered about the getting shorter part, but so said the source. I always interpreted it as some sort of muscle spasms or similar compressing the body. Anyway redirect is probably the way to go if the article cannot be expanded. Problem being exactly that redirecting prevents the subject matter from being expanded. I fired of an email to Volodarsky asking him to elaborate on his sources. BFG (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing it's that the victims become bent over, and something got lost in translation. In the event of a redirect, it is still possible to expand the content at the target page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard anything back from Volodarsky in over a week. I've finally reached the conclusion that this article cannot be verified. If the article cannot be verified maybe it shouldn't be redirected either. I'm putting the article up for AfD discussion BFG (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect. I don't think there is enough verifiable information for a stand-alone article on this topic, and the brief mention at Poison laboratory of the Soviet secret services is sufficient.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect. No verifiable information at all. "Witness testimonies" alone are not reliable source even if cited elsewhere. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)