Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallium(III) carbonate

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gallium(III) carbonate

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this gallium carbonate exists. pubchem is not a reference that shows this exists. At https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2012.11.075 it states "there are no known gallium carbonate compounds". (there are known double salts with rubidium or ammonium, or mixed anion compound with formate) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 22:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Gallium compounds or delete if it does not exist. It is not notable enough for its own article even if it did exist. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been proven to not exist, I think we should delete instead of redirecting. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can get Wilhelm Segerblom saying that this is "said to exist" in the early 20th century, ISBN 9780128145227 talking about simulations, and student textbooks using this as a hypothetical. But, conversely, ISBN 9780751401035 has no mention, nor has ISBN 9781483153223, which are really the sorts of works where this would definitely be documented. Sources such as ISBN 9788121942546 and Joseph William Mellor's Treatise on Inorganic and Theoretical chemistry are more explicit: "Gallium carbonate has not been prepared." This outright falsifies this article, which claims to show its preparation. This is a verifiable falsehood. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I removed the preparations section, as we cannot give uncited and wrong information to readers like this. Since it does not exist, we should delete it. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was just copied from neodymium(III) carbonate article! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A similar thing happened with neodymium acetate and gallium acetate. Gallium acetate was just a shell of a chemical article copied off neodymium acetate (you can literally check the creation edit summary) with no references and no apparent notability. I proposed it for deletion but it was declined, and eventually some references were added. However, gallium acetate actually exists, unlike gallium(III) carbonate. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So delete or redirect? Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it does not exist. If it existed, redirecting would have been the better option because it is not notable anyway. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I created the article, I would also propose to delete the article as I didn't check to see if it existed. Bli231957 (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bli231957: Note that some substances that don't exist are notable if many have written about it. Perhaps there are many attempts to make it, or a lot of theory. I could not find any of that for this substance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True. Anyway this non-existing compound doesn't pass the notability guidelines. Bli231957 (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.