Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silicon hypochlorite


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Silicon hypochlorite

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

PROD removed by anon, no reason given. Consensus at WikiProject Chemistry is that this chemical compound does not exist. The only mention of this chemical in the literature is an apparent indexing mistake. Yilloslime T C  23:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC) — User:75.10.48.19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Despite what the nominator claimed in the PROD earlier, the chemical reactions are completely plausible. After all, a silicon ion has a 4+ charge and each of the 4 hypochlorite ions has a - charge, for a total of 4-. Therefore, the total charge is 0, which is correct for an ionic compound. --75.10.48.19 (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all compounds that are electrically-neutral actually exist. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reactions described are quite unrealistic. ChemNerd (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How are they unrealistic? --75.25.102.229 (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research.  A silly use of Wikipedia to "look smart."  Some unmake-able compounds have attracted serious theoretical attention for specific reasons, but the list of unknown and unrealistic compounds is endless and their indiscriminate inclusion invites the use of Wikipedia as a platform for chemical games.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - real chemical, per se notable - or merge with Hypochlorite. I found a legitimate source.  I only have 18 credits in chemistry, so I am not an expert, but the article at least sounds plausible. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure your source would be considered WP:RS, and even whether the compound exists or not, with only 4 google hits I don't see how this compound would meet any of our notability criteria. Yilloslime T C  00:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any evidence that this is a real chemical. ChemNerd (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I sent a msg to that company requesting more information about this product of theirs. Will follow up here with any actual info they have. DMacks (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles have to do more than sound plausible, as this one does on the surface, they have to be verifiable. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you all are correct, it does not appear to be notable, so redirect or deletion may be appropriate. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, I don't think it exists. If it did, then it would be very interesting and there would doubtless be some literature on it link. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Why would it be any more interesting than any other compound? --75.25.102.229 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it is not a classical silicate but has a formula similar to silicides, but paired with the electronegative ion hypochlorite.Tim Vickers (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete This chemical compound is not found in Chemical Abstracts, therefore it has never been mentioned in the scientific literature. It has never been made, and the reactions described in the article have never been reported.  The entire content of the article is completely unverifiable and Wikipedia does not permit such articles.  ChemNerd (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Typos happen (and searching for a mispelt term can often find hits). There is no evidence that the topic is real, and good reason to think it is a hoax. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I checked SciFinder, which is a fairly comprehensive list of chemical compounds, and was unable to find this either by name or chemical-formula search. The only google hits are wiki-clones and the one vendor, who lists it as a generic list of related compounds. The hypochlorite is a strong oxidant (think "chlorine bleach") so that would be likely to react with a reducing agent like an active metal. Si4+ is not a strong oxidant, and sand (SiO2) is used to smother active-metal fires, and it doesn't yield Si in the process. Even the cited ref apparently is just a book-index mention that doesn't resolve to any actual content at the given page? Without evidence it exists, is notably useful, or has been the subject of publications about it (even as of a theoretical interest), totally non-viable article. DMacks (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence it exists. Chris (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Hard to see what this is even doing here at AfD. The compound doesn't exist outside of this contriutor's imagination. That means that the supposed chemistry is not simply unverifiable, it is made up. And now we're supposed to wait five more days to get it killed, just because of "Process"? Kill it now, and let's get on with writing an encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the positive side, reading about silicon has refreshed my knowledge of inorganic chemistry! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Snow delete. No evidence of existence - and it probably does not. Any solution containing ClO- is strongly basic, and to think that there can be such a thing as Si4+ in such a solution is beyond ridiculous. WP:V, WP:MADEUP. Tim Song (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2009 (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.