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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrofullerenes[edit]

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

The single source listed for this article does not mention nitrofullerene. I believe this chemical compound does not exist and/or the content of this article is just made up, and there is no indication of where the supposed data comes from. Because the content of this article is not verifiable (WP:V), the article should be deleted. Prod was removed with the comment "hundreds of refs available", but I don't believe that there are hundreds of references to a chemical compound that consists of C60 with 60 nitro groups. "Nitrofullerene" can refer to a compound with one nitro group, but that's not what this article is about. ChemNerd (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update. A thorough search of the chemical literature indicates that there is only one reference to this compound in the primary scientific literature: . doi:10.1016/j.theochem.2008.02.030. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help). It is a computational study indicating that this compound is purely hypothetical. This single mention in the literature does not confer sufficient notability to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, in my opinion. All other occurrences of "nitrofullerene" in the chemical literature (and in Google web searches) refer to different chemical compounds than the one described in this article. ChemNerd (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (can change a vote though) - the title is valid, the topic is valid, and I was about to rewrite the article, and I could, but I would remove nearly all current information outright as misleading (obviously 60/60 substitution is practically impossible in this case), thus delete is Ok with me. Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a reaxys search - I found one paper which mentions "hexanitro[60]fullerene" - nothing with 60 nitros. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These molecules were dreamed up, which is increasingly common with computational tools. They are not notable IMHO. Obviously someone (seeking funding for designing new explosives) spent some time on these articles.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too speculative, per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update I produced that wiki page on a theoretical molecule on which I start working. I haven’t yet produced any physically tangible material. Just after Christmas time, seeing the reaction, I decided to pay attention to the commentaries before completing the text. My opinion was that a thing exists from the moment it has been imagined and theoretically designed. According to this idea, a theoretical molecule is not less real. It has just never been bring to materialisation. There is a difference between "material" and "real". Since theoretical elements and concepts can not be part of wikipedia, I will not wait until the page get deleted. I will delete it by myself. A question of dignity. I plan to read the next commentaries, before I delete the page. Regards,Jfweemaes (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fullerene chemistry. C
₆₀(NO
₂)
_x probably exists for x very small, but I do not think it is notable enough for a separate article. I would prefer to keep a paragraph or something like that in the fullerene chemistry article. Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge That is a good idea. I can describe simplier fullerenes following a progressive form up to C
₆₀(NO
₂)
₆₀ and list known on-going works. My first writing experience in Wikipedia will have nevertheless been appreciated by me. I am open to the idea of merging it to Fullerene chemistry. I appreciate your commentaries. Jfweemaes (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2011 (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.