Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muonium chloride


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Muonium chloride

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article is probably a hoax. Of the citations, one is to the chemical abstracts services, which contains many entries for substances not-yet-synthesized; the other two are to the same document, recommendations to IUPAC for muon-compound nomenclature, which mentions nothing about the compound's actual synthesis. The article was created by User:0123喵喵9876, who translated it from zh Wikipedia, but searching 介子氯化物 (my best Google Translate guess at Chinese for "muonium chloride") turns up no useful articles. Searching ["muonium chloride" on Google Scholar] turns up only the IUPAC recommendations and discussions of muonium formation in chloride-containing substrates (but no muonium chloride sensu strictu). At best, I think this is a translation error; at worst, a willful one. Bernanke&#39;s Crossbow (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Merge or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. I agree that the claim in the article about synthesis is not supported by the source. I do see some coverage in theoretical papers, mainly Bondi et al. (1983) "Exact quantum and vibrationally adiabatic quantum, semiclassical and quasiclassical study of the collinear reactions Cl + MuCl, Cl + HCl, Cl + DCl" . It's WP:PRIMARY but I'm mentioning it in case it's helpful for editors trying to search for more sources. Searching for the phrase "氯化緲子" from the Chinese Wikipedia title basically just turns up mirrors/copies of that article and no helpful sources. In any case, even if we do end up with some usable content on muonium chemistry or compounds, I imagine it is probably more usefully put at Muonium rather than in a separate article. Adumbrativus (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum on why I'm thinking to delete rather than merge – I don't see any content in the current muonium chloride article that would actually be worth including in Muonium. My last sentence above was just to say that if someone were to write more content during this AfD it's possible I would reconsider. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to the Muonium article as suggested. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Support Merge as suggested above. --Bduke (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence here is not even ordinary. There's not even any content worth merging to muonium. Tercer (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge - Not notable to have an individual article. It would be better to Merge to the Muonium article. I agree with Bduke & Oaktree b. VincentGod11 (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No content worth merging. Doing so would introduce factual errors into the target article. The "merge as suggested" !votes seem to have no ultimate root, since the only !vote to which they could refer said that even if better content existed, that hypothetical content would still not merit a stand-alone article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2022 (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.