Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta carbon nitride

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 keep. Addhoc 00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beta carbon nitride

Beta carbon nitride (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A hypothesized chemical compound which might be harder than diamond. It might more likely be spontaneously explosive. The article has been contended to be a hoax; I don't have access to the journals cited as references right now. I have refused a speedy deletion as patent nonsense but brought it here. Sam Blacketer 16:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The links in the article prove, if nothing else, that there actually is an article called "Synthesis of beta carbon nitride nanosized crystal through mechanochemical reaction" in a 2003 issue of Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter and that "Unique Single-Crystalline Beta Carbon Nitride Nanorods" was printed in the journal Advanced Materials the same year, which indicates that this is not a "hoax". The possibility that the author is making up stories about what beta carbon nitride seems unlikely; of course, maybe those nanorods would turn out to be defective. Given the problem with consumer products made in China, can we be certain about a good quality nanorod from there? Mandsford 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The non-pay source cited checks out, and other secondary sources confirm it. There is some mention of skepticism, but it is definitely not a hoax. • Gene93k 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If it really existed and was important, normal newspapers would have picked it up by now. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• You're right. I read the chemistry and physics section of my local paper every day and I haven't seen it yet. Mandsford 20:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 28 Google Scholar hits, mostly behind paywalls of course, but the parts quoted by Google confirm enough fact to show that this is not an outright hoax. I'll check the Science article from work tomorrow, and have asked for someone from Wikiproject Physics to check some of the others. It's also had coverage in popular science publications like New Scientist [1] which would seem to imply it's considered notable for a general audience. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it was mentioned in Nature too. This was so simple to prove by Googling that I wonder about the good faith of its tagging as a hoax: Iceglass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a very new account but has already done a few strange things like trying to semiprotect his own talk page . Gordonofcartoon 23:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely notable with coverage listed. Hal peridol 00:07, 5 November 2007 (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.