Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polonol


 * 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. – bradv  🍁  04:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Polonol

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per User:Capewearer's PROD, "Doesn't appear to exist: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry", a discussion that finds the cited refs are either non-WP:RS or don't support the claims, and that multiple editors could not find and WP:RS that mention the topic at all.

In response to User:Bearian's PROD2, whether something has been proven to exist, or whether we think (or refs demonstrate) it even could exist at all--that's neither necessary nor sufficient.

This article is a translation of a zhwiki article zh:釙醇) currently subject to deletion there (zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2020/03/15) by request of that article's original author. The comments there mirror several of the WT ideas. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Both of the "sources" in the article failed verification, and a literature search turns up nothing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I have checked that the sources do not mention this kind of compound by name or formula. The Chinese article may have been original research - ie speculative ideas, but whatever it is not appropriate here. I labelled it as a hoax, although it is not vandalism, the truthfulness is questioned. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * zhwiki article has now been deleted. DMacks (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. As shown in the WikiProject Chemistry thread, there is no evidence that the subject of the article exists or has even been seriously considered by reliable sources. Double sharp (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Who knows why this thing was created but it is net unhelpful. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry. at that time, 2012, I didn't understand what is original research, create unhelpful page...... I am sorry if this has caused English wikipedia community any inconvenience.-- Nanachi🐰Fruit Tea ☕ （宇帆·☎️ ·☘️） 03:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. My Prod2 was hastily written, and while I stick by my scientific reasoning (even if it exists, it can't be proven by current technology), it did not make sense as a reason to delete. The real issue is per nom: if we can't verify something by significant coverage in several reliable sources, it ought to be deleted. Thank you all for your patience and forbearance in my lack of clarity. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for re-visiting the issue! DMacks (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. In fact, I have not been able to find any valid WP:RS references since 2012.-- Nanachi🐰Fruit Tea ☕ （宇帆·☎️ ·☘️） 19:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Translation of an original research. --Leiem (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note Could the closer make sure to remove Polonol from Template:Functional_groups if the outcome is delete? Thanks. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:27, 24 March 2020 (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.