Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beryllium chlorate

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Beryllium chlorate}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Beryllium chlorate}})

One of several unsourced or poorly sourced inorganic compound stubs recently created by {{user|Keresluna}}. Deprodded without explanation by {{user|Andrew Davidson}}. The original rationale, by {{user|Graeme Bartlett}}, read:

:{{tqb|This compound does not appear to exist. Chemical book and pubchem do not prove that it can be made. The only reliable reference I can find is 10.1135/cccc19290377 from 1929, where it could not be made.}} –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment Quick search in Google Books gave me several good hits, e.g. here https://books.google.es/books?id=yZ786vEild0C&pg=PA79&dq=%22Beryllium+chlorate%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMouPJmvTuAhWRUcAKHZ8qD2QQ6AEwBHoECAkQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Beryllium%20chlorate%22%20-wikipedia&f=false CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The nomination attacks myself and the good-faith creator but fails to provide a reason to delete. The prod was feeble too – the difficulty of making the compound is not a reason to delete – see unobtainium. Apart from what's in the article, the source cited by CommanderWaterford – Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds – is the clincher. This is easy to find – I did so when deprodding. The failure of the nominators to mention this demonstrates that WP:BEFORE was not followed. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The before was definitely done as there was a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#Beryllium chlorate. There is a section in Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds[ https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_the_Alkaline_Earth_Compo/yZ786vEild0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Beryllium+chlorate%22&pg=PA79&printsec=frontcover], but that section also calls it chlorite, and has a formula for perchlorate, and suggests it is a hydroxy compound. The melting and boiling point look extremely dubious, as the compound would be expected to decompose with high heat. It also claims that actinium is a halide. There are no references anywhere near this section in the book. So I am strongly suspecting the book is wrong and an unreliable source. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I will also retract my claim above that 10.1135/cccc19290377 is about this substance. After checking more carefully it is actually about Beryllium chloride, for some reason here called "Beryllium chlorat". So it means no reliable references found by me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete While we can have articles about substances that haven't been synthesized, we need to have something to say about them — significant coverage, even if only speculative. For example, unbiunium is conjectured to lie within the island of stability, and there's plenty to say about it despite the fact that no laboratory has managed to produce it. That doesn't appear to be the case here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I think that raising the quality of WP has to mean increasing the proportion of good articles, which necessarily involves deleting bad articles. And I think that experts (pace the idiot Gove) are the people to determine whether an article is good or not. Unfortunately my grasp of chemistry is very weak, so I can't really tell what would be wrong with reacting beryllium with hydrochloric acid to make beryllium chlorate. So actually I would be very happy to have my opinion entirely disregarded, on condition, of course, that opinions from other contributors who surely know even less about chemistry than I do are also disregarded. I refer, of course, to members of the "rescue brigade" or however it is that they style themselves, whose grasp of just about anything appears to be limited to string matching. ¶ Meanwhile, it looks like we may have another Cardarelli on our hands. R C Ropp was born in 1927 (according to his own, actually quite interesting memoir) and thus created the 1200-page "Encyclopedia" referenced above at the age of 85, some feat only a few years after completing the 630-page "Handbook of Glass Fractography" (from the publisher's blurb: "Every soul is a labyrinth and a riddle. A soul is a collection of fragments, moments and memories glittering like jewels upon a web. Every piece has connections to all the others.") The latter does seem to be more about glass than souls, but has its own fascinations. The author, born in Detroit, Michigan, naturally writes in American English, and his trademark typographical curiosity "i.e.-" is apparent throughout, but around page 6 he switches to British spelling for a change of air, I suppose. Some sections of the book use Fahrenheit temperatures, other sections Celsius, while Microsoft mock-ancient ordinal superscripts dance in and out around regular ones. What an oddity. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Even if this compound exists, it has had no significant coverage in reliable sources and is thus not notable enough for Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Mike Turnbull and the fact that we do not reward "trivia bombing." Non-chemists do not appreciate the deluge that Wiki-chem could be subject to if we encourage this activity. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry, topics about chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia, but this one appears to not meet the criteria. Reba16 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Regarding the coverage in Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds mentioned in previous comments, I am a bit skeptical; to start, the claimed formula Be(ClO3)2 and the claimed 92.4632 g/mol molecular weight seem to be contradictory. (Perhaps I misunderstand.) I concur with some of Graeme Bartlett's concerns about the source. In any case, I am not convinced there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Interesting. The molecular weight for magnesium chlorate later on the page also looks wrong [https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Magnesium-chlorate]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• The claimed 92.4632 g/mol molecular weight is supposed to be Be(ClO₃) and the pubchem entry CID=57502505 quoted as a reference in the article even has this drawing with unmatched charges (i.e. 2+ for the Be and 1- for the chlorate) — but is marked as "Non-live". The "correct" pubchem CID=129631187 is also quoted in the article but has no useful reliable sources associated with it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.