Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xerosydryle

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!} 02:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xerosydryle[edit]

[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)

Xerosydryle is a non-notable topic. The article confuses many ideas and is misleading. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one source mentions this term, and all search results are by the authors of that study. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Request_for_advice_from_new_page_patroller. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note I went for advice to WikiProject Chemistry on this and the resultant substantial discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Request for advice from new page patroller North8000 (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Supramolecular chemistry (or maybe there is a better target) and add a mention of the term with the only ref that cites it. Certainly should not persist in its current form, given the above, but I think adding a sourced mention at a broader article is a good WP:ATD in this case. That said, I would not be opposed to deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, specifically "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". (It's still not clear to me whether this is a hoax, prank, social experiment, or very bad science.) IpseCustos (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - User:IpseCustos - It appears to be very bad science. It appears to be polywater, which was very bad science. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FRINGE. There is superficial similarity with the concept of dry water, which is an emulsion of water (~95%) surrounded by silica (~5%). However, Germano et al. claim that their material is "predominantly water". In their recent DOI:10.14294/WATER.2021.2, methods of preparation include dipping cannabis in water and in a revealing discussion, apparently with a referee, that's included after the main text the authors say We were briefly treating the biological implications of the Xerosydryle existence and discovery in our other papers, suggesting that it may be the matrix of life itself. When the Xerosydryle is dissolved in water, in particular, it shows Circular Dichroism. Future research, not easy to perform, will be devoted to understanding if the right- or left-handed chirality is preferred under certain conditions; this may provide clues to understanding why almost all biologically produced chiral amino acids are left-handed, or about the dominance of the right-handed B-form of DNA. This is so bonkers as to defy comment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to follow the lead of the chemistry expert Wikipedians on this. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the "so bonkers as to defy comment" rationale. XOR'easter (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a different version of polywater, a form of water that is said to behave in a non-liquid way under ordinary conditions. It is almost certainly pathological science in which the experimenter is self-deceived. If it is studied enough in depth, it might merit a future article, but only as pathological science, not as a real material or class of materials. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 22 June 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.