Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lithium gold boride

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. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium gold boride[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)

The article makes exceptional and dubious claims with only two primary references to papers in low-credibility journals. Could not find anything else except for a third paper by the same authors. Only edits by creator Renseck (talk · contribs) were to this article, and since the article history includes hype this suggests a WP:PROMO intent. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is compounded by the fact that the two papers have managed to attract one citation since their publication 2018, it is hard to believe that this is something extremely important. --hroest 01:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is effectively original research; it is only sourced to one research group and has not attracted wider attention. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:13, 14 March 2021 (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.